Decision

Bargaining Unit Decision

Updated 7 March 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1435(2024)

06 March 2025

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DETERMINATION OF THE BARGAINING UNIT

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)         By a decision dated 11 December 2024 the Panel accepted the Union’s application.  The parties then entered a period of negotiation in an attempt to reach agreement on the appropriate bargaining unit.  As no agreement was reached, the parties were invited to supply the Panel with, and to exchange, written submissions relating to the question of the determination of the appropriate bargaining unit.  A bargaining unit hearing was held on 13 February 2025 and the names of those who attended the hearing are appended to this decision. To accommodate the hearing the Panel extended the period within which it was required to determine the bargaining unit to 27 February 2025 and by this decision has further extended it to 7 March 2025.

4)         The Panel is required, by paragraph 19(2) of the Schedule to the Act, to decide whether the proposed bargaining unit is appropriate and, if found not to be appropriate, to decide in accordance with paragraph 19(3) a bargaining unit which is appropriate. The Panel sets out the statutory requirements relating to the issue in more detail below.

2. Preliminary matters

Late evidence

5)         The parties were asked to supply written submissions to the CAC for the purposes of the hearing by noon on 6 February 2025.  Following a request from the Employer, the Panel Chair granted a short extension until 4.00 p.m. on 7 February 2025.  The parties complied with this requirement but on 12 February 2025 the Employer sent supplementary submissions to the CAC.  The Panel Chair directed that the Case Manager forward these submissions to the Union and the parties were informed that the Panel would decide whether to accept this late evidence at the hearing.  On the morning of the hearing on 13 February 2025 the Union also sent supplementary submissions to the CAC which it asked the Panel to admit, in light of the late evidence received from the Employer.  These were copied to the Employer by the Case Manager and the parties were informed that the Panel would address the matter at the hearing.

6)        At the beginning of the hearing the Panel Chair informed the parties that the Panel was in principle prepared to consider the parties’ supplementary submissions.  However, the Employer expressed concern that it had not had an opportunity to consider the additional material provided by the Union, requested time to review it, but added that it did not wish to delay proceedings.  The Panel did not consider it appropriate to delay the hearing and decided that the additional documentation submitted by both parties should not be admitted. This was because there was no good reason shown by the Employer why its material could not have been submitted by 7 February 2025 and the Union’s supplementary submissions were only in response to the Employer’s material which was not being admitted.   

3. The Union’s proposed bargaining unit

7)         The Union clarified that its proposed bargaining unit included Editorial staff.   The Employer confirmed that it understood and accepted that Editorial staff fell within the Union’s proposed bargaining unit.

4. Summary of the submissions made by the Union

8)         The Union submitted that its proposed bargaining unit was appropriate.  It comprised all staff journalists currently working for the Employer in its newspapers and associated news websites portfolio, including Editorial staff.  The Union clarified that as a specialist trade union for journalists, it was not looking to include non-journalist workers.  The Union said the following roles were included within the bargaining unit:

1) News Reporters;

2) Photographer(s);

3) News Editors;

4) Sports Editor;

5) Sub-Editor(s); and

6) Head of Editorial

9)         In answer to a question from the Panel, the Union explained that the words ‘all staff journalists’ meant those workers who had a contract of employment with the Employer.   The Union accepted that freelancers were not included if they were genuinely self-employed.

10)       The Union submitted that the CAC should focus first on its proposed bargaining unit, and that the question was not whether that bargaining unit was ideal or even whether it was better than any alterative bargaining unit proposed by the Employer. The question was whether it was an appropriate unit. The threshold was a ‘comparatively modest level of appropriateness’ (see [7] of R(Kwik-Fit (GB) Ltd) Central Arbitration Committee [2002] ICR 1212).

11)       The Union stated that there were no existing national or local bargaining arrangements in place.  The Union said that the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were based at the Redditch office but some worked wholly or partly from home.  There were various patterns of work including homeworking, hybrid working, and predominantly office working. The Union considered that the usual place of work in this case had no material bearing on whether the bargaining unit was appropriate.  The proposed bargaining unit would avoid fragmentation and small groups within the undertaking, which the Union believed was plainly compatible with effective management.  It was the Union’s view that the Employer’s proposed bargaining unit omitting Editorial staff would cause precisely the mischief that the statute sought to prevent.

12)       The Union submitted that this was a small workforce and bargaining unit, and to exclude Editors would encourage fragmentation and undermine effective management. The Editorial staff were all journalists who carried out similar work. The Editors’ focus was on the written content, and Editors did not have any management responsibility for discipline, finance, or the commercial direction of the Employer. To the extent that Editors were managers, they managed the journalistic content only.  This applied to all Editors, Sub Editors and the Head of Editorial. The Head of Editorial, while having general oversight and responsibility for the journalistic product, had no responsibility for setting salaries, conducting disciplinary processes, or directing the Employer’s general management. It could not be said that any of the Editors might find themselves sitting  ‘both sides of the bargaining table’.

13)       The Union provided the following descriptions for the roles contained within its proposed bargaining unit, using the titles as described by the Employer:

• News Reporters: There were two individuals in this role. They were engaged in the collecting and writing of news stories for a number of titles and their associated websites. They carried out their work in connection with others who had Editorial responsibility for their respective titles.

• Photographer(s): There was only one staff photographer who served as a resource for all titles.

• News Editors: The Union believed that there were three individuals in this role, two of whom used the title ‘Editor’. The work undertaken by the third individual was slightly different but essentially all three looked after a title or titles and website by creating pages and updating content on the website. They did not have staff reporting to them. One individual was part-time.

• Sports Editor: This individual subedited and produced sports pages for all group newspapers and sport content for the associated websites.  There was no individual reporting to this individual.

• Sub Editor: This was a part-time, two-days-a-week role, concerned solely with the layout of newspaper pages for multiple titles.

• Head of Editorial: This role was also called the Hub Editorial Manager. It was essentially a hands-on journalist’s role as the senior figure for making day-to-day Editorial decisions. The individual had Editor responsibility for five titles and also served as a writer for another. Recently, some duties had been shared elsewhere, but the Union believed that between 80-90% of this role was spent purely on Editorial work. It was very much a journalist’s job focused on the generation of content and ensuring that production was maintained throughout, in a very busy and dynamic environment. However, a significant part of the role was to manage and administer the group’s work experience programme which had a constant turnover of those seeking a career in journalism who required supervision and mentoring.

14)       The Union submitted that there was no formal annual review of pay for journalists and Editorial staff. Generally, the only movement that occurred was because of changes to the rate of the National Minimum Wage. There might be ad hoc adjustments to individuals’ salaries, but this would come about from specific circumstances, such as the non-replacement of a role and a division of responsibilities.   The Union contended that as the Employer was family-owned, any such decision was tightly controlled by the family members.  It might be discussed with the Head of Editorial, but there was no realistic ability for independent decision making. Budget-setting was done by senior management with no real authority vested in the Head of Editorial.  Family members made decisions on other major areas such as working from home or deciding on holiday entitlement policy, not the Head of Editorial. Additional paid work, including the processing of sponsored articles was done on a rotational basis via the responsible Director and the Account Manager.

15)       The Union observed that the sample contracts of employment, copies of which it had provided with its submissions, showed a great degree of similarity, no matter the role.  The Union believed that this indicated that the Employer did not intend to have significant boundaries and hierarchy within the newsroom.   The Union said that this was reinforced by the non-existence of job descriptions or detailed list of responsibilities for roles within the contracts of employment. By contrast, the Employer’s proposed bargaining unit if adopted would lead to multiple bargaining units, tiny in size at a small undertaking. It would lead to fragmentation and be unworkable. The Union maintained that the Employer was seeking to draw a distinction based on job title, where none existed.   

16)       The Union submitted that this was a small enterprise where everyone essentially pulled together to produce the content. There were no strict hierarchical lines, no set job descriptions, little variation in wage, and no managerial responsibility outside the management of the content of the journalism. All individuals worked towards producing excellent content and worked in common with each other.   In so far as there was an ‘us and them’ or two sides of any bargain, all the journalists, including the Editors, sat together, and the directors/management sat firmly on the other side.  The Union submitted that the Panel must not attach weight to specific titles given by the Employer without considering what those individuals do.   

17)       In its closing statement the Union said that the Employer had twice maintained that the Union’s submissions were inaccurate, but had presented no evidence to support its assertion.  The Union said that its members wanted recognition.   It had tried to convey an honest description of the roles within its proposed bargaining unit.  This was a small company and decisions that mattered were firmly shaped by the family.  The Union submitted that when considering the core question of appropriateness, its proposed bargaining unit was wholly appropriate and compatible with effective management.

5. Summary of the submissions made by the Employer

18)       The Employer objected to the Union’s inclusion of Editorial staff within the proposed bargaining unit and submitted that the proposed bargaining unit was not appropriate.  The Employer said that there were several inaccuracies in the Union’s written submissions which should not be taken at face value.

19)       The Employer contended that Editorial staff had both Editorial and managerial responsibilities. In particular, the individuals played a crucial role in decision-making, resource allocation, and strategic planning.  The Employer believed that including them in a bargaining unit designed to negotiate employment terms would create an inherent conflict of interest, as they were responsible for implementing company policies and overseeing staff. Furthermore, their inclusion would blur the distinction between employees with decision-making authority and those who were managed under their supervision.

20)       The Employer said that management and Editorial staff  had a range of responsibilities in the same sphere, they were not merely employees but custodians of Editorial integrity, business strategy, and overall newspaper viability.  In answer to a question from the Panel, the Employer stated that there were no newsroom managerial roles that were not Editors.   Their responsibilities extended far beyond routine tasks, encompassing ethical Editorial oversight, compliance with industry regulations, and balancing commercial viability with journalistic independence.   The Employer maintained that including such individuals in collective bargaining agreements would severely limit their ability to maintain objectivity and impartiality in their decision-making.

21)       The Employer stated that no two Editorial roles were the same in the news industry. Some Editors oversee large city papers, and complex Editorial operations, while others were responsible for much smaller town titles, where their leadership had a more direct and personal impact on the publication’s success.  The Employer said that it must retain the flexibility to recognise and reward individual Editors based on their unique responsibilities, achievements, and the specific challenges that they faced. The influence and leadership of an Editor in a major metropolitan publication could not be equated with that of an Editor managing a small regional paper. It was essential that the Employer could acknowledge and appropriately compensate those who bore greater responsibility and whose strategic decisions significantly shaped the success of their respective titles. These distinctions highlighted that Editorial leadership could not and should not be recognised as a homogeneous unit for the most part. The Employer believed that any attempt to do so would be overly simplistic and fail to account for the significant differences in their roles, responsibilities, and impact.

22)       The Employer explained that a considerable portion of the news-gathering responsibilities within its organisation were currently undertaken by freelance workers. These individuals were contracted on a case-by-case basis, contributing articles, investigative pieces, and local news coverage.  It was the Employer’s view that as independent contractors, freelancers did not fall under the category of employees, and that they should not be included in any proposed bargaining unit. Their work was distinct from that of permanent staff, and they maintained autonomy over their assignments, rates, and contractual terms.

23)       The Employer explained that it was a small organisation where each member of staff had distinct responsibilities, experience levels, and operational roles. Some employees had authority over hiring, disciplinary matters, or workload distribution, making it inappropriate for them to be included in a bargaining unit that negotiates conditions  they may be responsible for enforcing.  It was the Employer’s view that given these significant differences in job functions, a single bargaining unit that encompassed all employees was neither practical nor fair and would be incompatible with effective management.

24)       The Employer clarified  that  Editors had varying degrees of responsibilities in terms of hiring, firing, and resource allocation.  However,  their managerial responsibilities of Editorial staff generally would be limited. Specifically, the Head of Editorial could hire and fire, place recruitment ads and conduct interviews.  The Directors had no input in this. If the Head of Editorial considered that more staff were required, they would talk to the Directors who would have the decision whether to authorise recruitment or not. 

25)       The Employer said that a further key factor was the diverse nature of its workforce, with employees working under varied arrangements. Some staff worked full-time from the office, others worked remotely from home, and many operated in a hybrid capacity. Their day-to-day responsibilities also differed greatly, from news-gathering work to administrative support and managerial oversight. This structural disparity made it difficult to establish a bargaining unit that fairly represented all employees.

26)       The Employer submitted that attempting to apply a one-size-fits-all bargaining unit to such a multifaceted workforce would ignore the nuances that defined its operations. Editorial staff made decisions about content and publications, managerial employees oversaw budgets and workforce planning, and administrative personnel provided the essential support that kept the company running. The Employer believed that given these differences, it was imperative that the bargaining unit be refined to exclude those with distinct managerial and Editor responsibilities. The Employer said that a unique aspect of its business operations was that any number of staff members, regardless of their primary job function, can contribute Editorial content to its newspapers and websites.  The Employer said that while it had designated Editorial staff, contributions from sales, administrative, and marketing employees frequently supplemented its content in print and online. These individuals did not hold traditional Editorial roles but may still play a role in content creation, such as writing features, producing articles, or contributing commentary.

27)       The Employer said that the Head of Editorial had always been responsible for departmental budgets and pay awards based on competence, achievements, and additional workloads and responsibilities undertaken by individual employees.  The Employer stated that, as someone who worked closely with the team, the Head of Editorial was best placed to assess their contributions and performance. This longstanding practice ensured that pay awards were fairly and appropriately allocated and reflected the skills and efforts of each individual. 

28)       In answer to a question from the Panel as to exactly how much control the Head of Editorial had in relation to pay, the Employer explained that the Head of Editorial was given a budget by the Director of Finance, which the Head of Editorial would then allocate to newsroom staff.  The Employer explained that the Head of Editorial had not been in post long and was therefore still learning some of the processes, but ultimately, they would have 75% control of the allocation of the budget.  The Directors would give guidance to the Head of Editorial on the parameters.  The Head of Editorial’s decisions would be within a framework set by the Directors, the framework being very broad.  Individuals would be rewarded according to their roles and skills.

29)       In its closing statement the Employer said that the bargaining unit should be restricted to employees below the level of Editor to maintain the integrity of Editorial decision-making, effective management and operational business efficiency.  The Employer submitted that only a bargaining unit excluding anyone with the job title of Editor or freelancers would be compatible with effective management.

6. Considerations

30)       The Panel is required, by paragraph 19(2) of the Schedule to the Act, to decide whether the proposed bargaining unit is appropriate and, if found not to be appropriate, to decide in accordance with paragraph 19(3) a bargaining unit which is appropriate. Paragraph 19B(1) and (2) state that, in making those decisions,  the Panel must take into account the need for the unit to be compatible with effective management and the matters listed in paragraph 19B(3) so far as they do not conflict with that need.  The matters listed in paragraph 19B(3) are: the views of the employer and the union; existing national and local bargaining arrangements; the desirability of avoiding small, fragmented bargaining units within an undertaking; the characteristics of workers falling within the bargaining unit under consideration and of any other employees of the employer whom the CAC considers relevant; and the location of workers. Paragraph 19B(4) states that in taking an employer’s views into account for the purpose of deciding whether the proposed bargaining unit is appropriate, the CAC must take into account any view the employer has about any other bargaining unit that it considers would be appropriate. The Panel must also have regard to paragraph 171 of the Schedule which provides that “[i]n exercising functions under this Schedule in any particular case the CAC must have regard to the object of encouraging and promoting fair and efficient practices and arrangements in the workplace, so far as having regard to that object is consistent with applying other provisions of this Schedule in the case concerned.”  The Panel’s decision has been taken after a full and detailed consideration of the views of both parties as expressed in their written submissions and amplified at the hearing.

31)       The Panel’s first responsibility is to decide, in accordance with paragraph 19(2) of the Schedule, whether the Union’s proposed bargaining unit is appropriate.  There is no requirement on the Panel to seek to identify a more appropriate bargaining unit if it finds that the union’s proposed bargaining unit is appropriate. The Panel considers that in this case the Union’s proposed bargaining unit is not incompatible with effective management and is therefore appropriate.   Its reasons for so concluding are as follows.

32)       Addressing first the issue of freelancers, the Panel notes that the proposed bargaining unit consists of “all staff journalists”. The Union does not seek to include freelancers who are genuinely self-employed within the bargaining unit, and the wording reflects this.

33)    The Panel notes that the Employer is an operator of regional newspaper and associated online titles in the West Midlands. It is a small, family-owned business and it was clear from both parties’ submissions that the family members, Ms Pat Bullivant and the Chief Executive, Mr Chris Bullivant, supported by the Director of Finance Mr McGahan, closely control the Employer’s strategic and financial affairs.

34)   The Panel notes that the Employer’s newsroom consists of fewer than a dozen individuals, more than half of whom have the word “Editor” or its cognates in their job titles. It is important that the Panel focusses on what the individuals actually do rather than limiting itself to job titles. It is also important that the Panel identifies when considering effective management any workers within the proposed bargaining unit who genuinely hold management responsibilities covering, for example, the setting of pay, responsibility for financial and strategic direction and discipline and grievance. This avoids the risk of individuals finding themselves on both sides of the bargaining table.

35)   The Employer submits that the inclusion within the bargaining unit of those roles with Editor in their title would create a conflict of interest owing to their managerial role. The Panel has carefully considered this issue and in its deliberations and conclusions has carefully considered what differences exist between the Head of Editorial and the other roles with Editor in their titles (News Editor, Sub-Editor, Sports Editor).

36)   Dealing first with the latter group of employees, the Panel was wholly unpersuaded that the individuals with Editor in their titles had genuine managerial responsibilities which would make it incompatible with effective management to include them in the bargaining unit. It would be surprising if over half of the journalists in this small newsroom had management roles, and the Panel noted the evidence of Ms Osborne, a representative of the Union at the Employer, which Ms Bullivant accepted in her submissions, that in the Employer’s small newsroom, everyone “mucked in together” and shared out the work including news-gathering. This is exactly as the Panel would expect in a small newspaper group operating, as Ms Bullivant repeatedly stressed in her submissions for the Employer, on a limited budget. The Panel agrees with Ms Bullivant’s observation that no two Editorial roles are the same and there is a great deal of difference between Editors in a major newspaper group and those in a regional newspaper. It is essential that the Panel look carefully at the roles in this employer.

37)   The Panel was not assisted by any job descriptions, written terms of employment or information about the rates of pay of Editorial staff (except that many of the Employer’s journalist staff, including those within the Editorial team, were paid little more than the rate of the National Minimum Wage). Whilst the Employer’s Editorial staff, the Panel finds, will set the direction on content and what events and stories others will cover, the Panel finds that they had no managerial responsibility over finance, overall strategy or any HR or disciplinary matters (accepting, as Ms Bullivant told the Panel, that no disciplinary or grievance issues had recently arisen). Their roles as Editors covered the scrutiny of content, but they were not managers in any real sense of the word.   Their inclusion in the proposed bargaining unit is not, the Panel readily concludes, incompatible with effective management.

38)   Turning then to the role of the Head of Editorial, the Panel finds the position less straightforward. The Panel finds that within the Employer’s business, the Head of Editorial has overall editorial responsibility for all content generated through the newsroom across the Employer’s titles. The Panel notes that the Head of Editorial makes recommendations about hiring and firing and allocation of roles and responsibilities within the newsroom and makes the majority (said by Ms Bullivant to be 75%) of the decisions about how to spend the budget made available to him. It may well be that in many media companies, the Head of Editorial or similar postholder would be part of the senior management team, but in this small company, where the Directors and family owners maintain close control of strategic and financial matters, the role sits within the team of journalists within the newsroom rather than as part of the senior management team. On this basis, the Panel was not persuaded that to include this role in the bargaining unit would be incompatible with effective management, when ultimate decision-making power rested with senior management and Directors.   

39)       The Panel has considered the matters listed in paragraph 19B(3) of the Schedule, so far as they do not conflict with the need for the unit to be compatible with effective management. The views of the Employer and the Union, as described earlier in this decision, have been fully considered. There are no existing national and local bargaining arrangements.  The proposed bargaining unit does not create small, fragmented bargaining units within the Employer’s journalistic activities, whereas excluding Editorial staff would create that risk. The proposed bargaining unit encompasses a discrete group of workers within the Employer’s journalistic operation who share many common terms and conditions and job characteristics and duties. All of the workers are employed at or from one location, the Redditch office. The Panel is satisfied that its decision is consistent with the object set out in paragraph 171 of the Schedule.     

7. Decision

40)       The Panel’s decision is that the appropriate bargaining unit is that specified by the Union in its application, namely, all staff journalists currently working for Bullivant Media Group Limited in its newspapers and associated news websites portfolio.

Panel

Mr Stuart Robertson, Chair of the Panel

Mr Alastair Kelly

Mr Paul Morley

06 March 2025

8. Appendix

Names of those who attended the hearing:

For the Union

Chris Morley                                       -           NUJ Northern & Midlands Senior Organiser

Ashleigh Osborne                            -           NUJ Chapel Representative

For the Employer

Patricia Ann Bullivant                   -           Director

Ian McGahan                                    -           Director of Finance

Christopher James Bullivant    -          Chief Executive