Acceptance Decision
Updated 12 December 2024
Applies to England, Scotland and Wales
© Crown copyright 2024
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cac-outcome-nuj-bullivant-media-group-limited/application-progress
Case Number: TUR1/1435(2024)
11 December 2024
CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE
TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992
SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION
DECISION ON WHETHER TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATION
The Parties:
National Union of Journalists
and
Bullivant Media Group Limited
1. Introduction
1) The National Union of Journalists (the Union) submitted an application to the Central Arbitration Committee (the CAC) dated 30 October 2024 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Bullivant Media Group Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “all staff journalists currently working for Bullivant Media Group Limited in its newspapers and associated news websites portfolio.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as Webb House, Redditch, Worcestershire B98 8BP. The application was received by the CAC on 30 October 2024 and the CAC gave notice of receipt of the application to the parties that day. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 6 November 2024 which was copied to the Union.
2) In accordance with section 263 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (the Act), the CAC Chair established a Panel to deal with the case. The Panel consisted of Mr Stuart Robertson, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Alastair Kelly and Mr Paul Morley. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kate Norgate.
3) The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 13 November 2024. The acceptance period was extended on three further occasions to allow time for a membership and support check to take place, for the parties to comment on the subsequent report, and for the Panel to consider those comments before arriving at a decision. The final extension ends the acceptance period on 11 December 2024.
2. Issues
4) The Panel is required by paragraph 15 of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule) to decide whether the Union’s application to the CAC is valid within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9; is made in accordance with paragraphs 11 or 12; is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 33 to 42; and therefore should be accepted.
3. Summary of the Union’s application
5) In its application to the CAC the Union stated that it had sent its request for recognition to the Employer on 15 October 2024. The Union stated that in an e-mail dated 30 October 2024 the Employer had rejected this request, on the basis that it only had a small team. A copy of the Union’s request and the Employer’s e-mail of 30 October 2024 were attached to the Union’s application.
6) When asked whether the Union had made a previous application under the Schedule for statutory recognition for workers in the proposed bargaining unit or a similar unit the Union answered “No”. The Union stated that, following receipt of the request for recognition, the Employer had not proposed that Acas should be requested to assist the parties.
7) The Union stated that the total number of workers employed by the Employer was approximately 25. The Union said that there were 16 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, and that more than 50% of those workers were members of the Union. When asked to provide evidence that the majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were likely to support recognition for collective bargaining, the Union said that it believed that as the majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union, this was sufficient evidence of support for recognition.
8) The Union stated that the reason for selecting its proposed bargaining unit was because it comprised a distinct and discrete group of staff within the company, and that it was compatible with effective management. In answer to the question whether the bargaining unit had been agreed with the Employer, the Union stated “No”. The Union said that there was no existing recognition agreement of which it was aware that covered any workers in the bargaining unit.
9) The Union confirmed that it held a current certificate of independence. The Union stated that it had copied its application and supporting documents to the Employer on 30 October 2024.
4. Summary of the Employer’s response to the Union’s application
10) In its response to the Union’s application the Employer stated that it had received the Union’s written request for recognition on 15 October 2024. The Employer attached to its response a copy of the Union’s letter of 15 October 2024, along with its e-mailed reply dated 30 October 2024.
11) The Employer said that it had received a copy of the application form and supporting documents from the Union on 30 October 2024. The Employer stated that it had not, before receiving a copy of the application form from the Union, agreed the bargaining unit with the Union, and that it did not agree the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer said that as a small company, it preferred to recognise individual achievements and reward accordingly.
12) When asked whether following receipt of the Union’s request it had proposed that Acas should be requested to assist, the Employer said that it had not, as it had not realised that this was an option.
13) The Employer said that the total number of workers employed by it was 17. The Employer said that it disagreed with the number of workers in the bargaining unit as set out in the Union’s application, as there were only 9 or 10 employees in the editorial department.
14) The Employer said that there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit.
15) When asked for its reasons for disagreeing with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer said that it had not been made aware of Union membership.
16) When invited to give its reasons if it did not consider that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit would be likely to support recognition, the Employer said that it believed the majority of staff, including those in the bargaining unit and those outside the bargaining unit, appreciated its ‘Open Door’ policy where there was flexibility to approach the Employer directly, so that their roles could be reviewed or issues addressed as individuals. Their individual achievements or issues that needed addressing could therefore be recognised by the company.
17) When asked whether it was aware of any previous application under the Schedule by the Union in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit, the Employer said that “there was an approach to a former company some years ago.”
18) Finally, the Employer had not received any other applications in respect of any workers in the proposed bargaining unit.
5. Additional comments from the parties
19) On 8 November 2024 the CAC copied the Employer’s response to the application to the Union. In a further letter dated 14 November 2024 the CAC wrote to the Employer and asked it to clarify the total number of workers employed by it on the date on which it received the Union’s formal request for recognition.
20) In an e-mail to the CAC dated 20 November 2024 the Employer stated that on 15 October 2024 Bullivant Media Group had a total of 23 employees (or 19.5 full time equivalents). However, due to an ongoing reorganisation programme planned and implemented over a number of months, it was anticipated that the head count of employees in Bullivant Media Group would be 17 (or 14 full time equivalents) from the beginning of November 2024, of which a total of 10 (or 8.5 full time equivalents) were members of the editorial team (but one member of the team was leaving in December 2024, leaving a total of 9 (or 7.5 full time equivalents) in the editorial team at the end of December 2024.
21) The Employer explained that the planned restructuring was an attempt to provide a more robust and stable business model; one that would put the company in a position to meet the challenges and changes that faced all regional local newspaper companies in respect of the transition from a print to digital offering.
6. The membership and support check
22) To assist in the determination of two of the admissibility criteria specified in the Schedule, namely, whether 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit are members of the union (paragraph 36(1)(a)) and whether a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit (paragraph 36(1)(b)), the Panel proposed an independent check of the level of union membership within the proposed bargaining unit. It was agreed with the parties that the Employer would supply to the Case Manager a list of the names, dates of birth and job titles of workers within the proposed bargaining unit, and that the Union would supply to the Case Manager a list of its paid up members within that unit (including their dates of birth). It was explicitly agreed with both parties that, to preserve confidentiality, the respective lists would not be copied to the other party and that agreement was confirmed in a letter dated 22 November 2024 from the Case Manager to both parties.
23) The information requested from both parties was received by the CAC on 22 November 2024. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.
24) The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 10 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. Beneath the heading “Job Title” the titles provided were News Reporter, Photographer, Subs, News Editor, Sports Editor, and Head of Editorial. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 7 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 7, a membership level of 70%.
25) A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 27 November 2024 and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by close of business on 28 November 2024.
7. Summary of the parties’ comments following the membership and support check
26) In an e-mail to the CAC dated 27 November 2024, the Union said that it was important to explain that it believed the total number of workers at Bullivant Media Group on 15 October 2025 was 25, and that it had noted that the employer maintained that this figure was 23. The Union said that irrespective of this, both figures met the required threshold for an application for statutory recognition.
27) The Union said that it also noted that the Employer, in its response to the Union’s application, had stated that the editorial team at the time of application was 10, and that the information provided for the membership check also gave the details of 10 workers in the proposed bargaining unit. The Union said that it believed that the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit was 11 (irrespective of one individual who has put their notice in and would leave in December) giving a membership density of either 64% or 70%, whichever figure was used. The Union stated that whichever number was correct, it believed that it had a substantial majority of workers in the proposed bargaining unit. The Union stated that it also believed that, in the absence of any material and substantial information to the contrary, the CAC was entitled to hold that those who are members of the union were more likely than not to want the Union to negotiate on their behalf through collective bargaining through recognition of the union.
28) In its concluding comments, the Union said it believed that it had met both tests, namely, that 10% of the proposed bargaining unit were union members, and that a majority of workers in the proposed bargaining unit are likely to support recognition.
29) In an e-mail to the CAC dated 27 November 2024 the Employer stated that it had no comments to make regarding the contents of the report.
8. Considerations
30) In determining whether to accept the application the Panel must decide whether the admissibility and validity provisions referred to in paragraph 4 above are satisfied. The Panel has considered carefully the submissions of both parties and all the evidence material to the matters it is required to decide in reaching its decision.
31) The Panel is satisfied that the Union made a valid request to the Employer within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9 of the Schedule and that its application was made in accordance with paragraph 11. Furthermore, the Panel is satisfied that the application is not rendered inadmissible by any of the provisions in paragraphs 33 to 35 and 37 to 42 of the Schedule. The remaining issues for the Panel to decide are whether the admissibility criteria contained in paragraph 36(1)(a) and paragraph 36(1)(b) are met.
Paragraph 36(1)(a)
32) Under paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule an application is not admissible unless the Panel decides that members of the union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit. The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 22-24 above) showed that 70% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit (7 out of 10 workers) were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 23 above, the Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties. The Panel has therefore decided that members of the Union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit as required by paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule.
Paragraph 36(1)(b)
33) Under paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule, an application is not admissible unless the Panel decides that a majority of the workers constituting the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit. As stated in paragraph 32 above, the membership check conducted by the Case Manager showed that 7 out of 10 workers in the bargaining unit were members of the Union, representing a membership level of 70%. The Panel considers that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, union membership provides a legitimate indicator of the views of workers in the proposed bargaining unit as to whether they would be likely to favour recognition. No such evidence to the contrary was received in this case.
34) On the evidence before it the Panel has decided, on the balance of probabilities, that a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit, as required by paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule.
9. Concluding observations
35) Finally, the Panel notes the Union’s concerns, set out in submissions above, that the information provided by the Employer omitted one worker from the proposed bargaining unit. As the admissibility criteria have been met whichever figure is used, the Panel has not found it necessary to investigate the Union’s concerns for the purposes of this decision. However, this does not prevent the Panel from undertaking further investigations at a later stage of the process should it consider this to be appropriate.
10. Decision
36) For the reasons given in paragraphs 31-34 above the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.
Panel
Mr Stuart Robertson, Panel Chair
Mr Alastair Kelly
Mr Paul Morley
11 December 2024