Decision

Bargaining Unit Decision

Updated 16 March 2023

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1272(2022)

14 February 2023

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DETERMINATION OF THE BARGAINING UNIT

The Parties:

The Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS)

and

Mitie Group PLC

1. Introduction

1) The Public and Commercial Services Union (the Union) submitted an application to the Central Arbitration Committee (the CAC) dated 30 May 2022 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Mitie Group PLC (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising:

“Security personnel, facilities management staff (cleaning and maintenance), catering/kitchen staff and mail room staff working for Mitie at Abercrombie House, Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) Eaglesham Road, East Kilbride, G75 8EA.

For the purposes of this definition ‘staff’ covers the following job roles (or similar titles in these areas of work):

• Cleaners/housekeeping/cleaning team leader

• Security guards/operatives

• Security supervisors/ line managers

• Maintenance workers

• Mail/post room operative/staff

• Catering/Kitchen general assistants

• Catering/Kitchen chefs/supervisors”

2) The CAC received the application on 30 May 2022 and gave both parties notice of receipt of the application by letter of the same date. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 8 June 2022 which was copied to the Union.

3) In accordance with section 263 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (the Act), the CAC Chairman established a Panel to deal with the case. The Panel consisted of Mr Stuart Robertson, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Alistair Paton and Mr Paul Morley. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kate Norgate.

4) By a decision dated 5 August 2022 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. After the parties had done this, a virtual hearing was held on 25 November 2022. In light of an unexpected issue whether certain management roles fell within the scope of the proposed bargaining unit, the Panel, having sought the parties’ views, adjourned the hearing to allow time for the parties to consider and discuss the issue of the management roles. The hearing was reconvened as a virtual hearing by MS Teams on 27 January 2023 and the names of those who attended the hearing are appended to this decision.

5) The Panel is required, by paragraph 19(2) of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule), to decide whether the Union’s 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) of the Schedule so far as they do not conflict with that need. The matters listed in paragraph 19B(3) are: (a) the views of the employer and the union; (b) existing national and local bargaining arrangements; (c) the desirability of avoiding small, fragmented bargaining units within an undertaking; (d) 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 (e) the location of workers. Paragraph 19B(4) states that in considering an employer’s views 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.

2. Management roles and scope of the hearing

6) At the beginning of the hearing on 27 January 2023, the parties advised the Panel that they had reached agreement as to which management roles fell within the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The Panel agreed that the hearing should proceed by consent on the basis of the Union’s re-defined proposed bargaining unit which is now one comprising:

“Security personnel, facilities management staff (cleaning and maintenance), catering/kitchen staff and mail room staff working for Mitie at Abercrombie House, Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) Eaglesham Road, East Kilbride, G75 8EA.

For the purposes of this definition ‘staff’ covers the following job roles (or similar titles in these areas of work):

• Cleaners/housekeeping/cleaning team leader

• Security guards/operatives

• Security supervisors/ line managers

• Maintenance workers

• Mail/post room operative/staff

• Catering/Kitchen general assistants

• Catering/Kitchen chefs/supervisors

• All ‘first line’ management roles, namely; Chef Manager (also referred to as Catering Manager), Cleaning Manager, Security Duty Manager, and Site Security Manager (also referred to as Abercrombie Site Manager, but excluding the Workplace Manager (also referred to as Facilities Manager).”

7) The parties agreed that the issue for the Panel was now whether the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was appropriate or whether, as the Employer contended, security staff should form a separate bargaining unit, the Employer indicating that it was prepared to enter into a separate recognition agreement for them. The parties accepted, however, that the Panel could only determine a single bargaining unit within this application and could not define two separate bargaining units.

3. Summary of the Union’s submissions

8) The Union, represented by Ms Tether of counsel at the hearings on 25 November 2022 and 27 January 2023, submitted that the question for the Panel was whether the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was appropriate. In the case of R (on the application of Kwik-Fit (GB) Ltd) v Central Arbitration Committee [2002] IRLR 395, the Court of Appeal held that this was a comparatively modest test whereby the Union had to satisfy the CAC that its proposed bargaining unit was appropriate for collective bargaining about pay, hours and holidays, not the best or most appropriate bargaining unit.

9) In relation to the proposed bargaining unit being compatible with effective management, the Union stated that in Kwik Fit, it was said that “the duty was not to determine the unit that was compatible with the most effective management: there might be a number of possible bargaining units that would be consistent with effective management, but not necessarily as effective.” Further the Union referred to the CAC judgment in Unite the Union and Splunk Services UK Limited (TUR1/1191/2020) in which “compatible” was defined as meaning “being consistent with” or “able to co-exist with” effective management. The question to be answered was: “taking account of the statutory criteria and of the way in which the undertaking operates and is organised, does the proposed bargaining unit offer a sensible and workable vehicle for settling by collective bargaining the pay, hours and holidays of the workers concerned?”

10) The Union contended that its proposed bargaining unit was clearly compatible with effective management. The bargaining unit was clearly defined and logical and would not present any significant conflict with effective management. The workforce provided services under an overarching Affiliate Cluster contract which covered separate contracts with Government Departments. Employees reported to the same manager, Mark Stevenson (the Workplace Manager at the Abercrombie site). The Union understood that all the employees in the bargaining unit fell within the same business area of the Employer, and referred to information on the Employer’s website regarding its “Central Government & Defence Business Area” which stated:

“For some clients, we provide total facilities management services. For others we provide a mixture of maintenance, cleaning, security, catering, porterage, reprographics, stores, mail services, help desk and front of house/reception.

On our Defence contracts, we provide a range of services including building and structure maintenance across lots of different military facilities including active airfields, accommodation services and airfield maintenance.”

11) The Union stated that the Employer had indicated that it operated on the basis that each of its government contracts were independently financially and operationally managed within each business sector (bundle p128) and that this meant that pay negotiations with recognised trade unions were undertaken separately for each contract as per particular contract terms and conditions. The Union said it interpreted this as the Employer contending that it was more convenient for the Employer to have separate bargaining units, on the basis that the security staff and other staff were now in separate business units. The Union submitted that this was not the legal test and that the legal test was whether the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was workable.

12) The Union submitted that there was no good reason why security staff needed to be in a separate bargaining unit. It was clearly practicable for collective bargaining in relation to all staff working at Abercrombie House to be conducted within a single bargaining unit. The Union referenced the CAC decision in GMB and Manheim Limited (TUR1/1079/2018, 17 April 2019), in which it was held that “There is nothing unusual about collective bargaining on a geographical basis with a bargaining unit including a number of different types of workers with variations of terms and conditions.”

13) The Union submitted that in its experience of collective bargaining under other recognition agreements with the Employer (for example bundle p96, 130 and 153), the Employer’s main representatives at pay negotiations were the Account Manager (the individual responsible for the relevant facilities management contract) and an HR Business Partner. The Union added that generally, these individuals did not have authority to make decisions and were required to report back to the decision makers at a more senior level. The Union referred, by way of example, to Union members employed at the FCDO King Charles Street site who had, previously, been in a dispute with the Employer. Talks were held at Acas, for the purpose of resolving the dispute. On the Employer side, those who attended were the Account Manager and Diana Gardiner, Senior ER/IR Partner, People Services. The Union therefore contended that there was no good reason why the Employer could not operate its usual approach, of the Account Manager for the contract and the HR Business Manager attending collective bargaining meetings and then referring back to the appropriate decision maker(s) at senior level. The Union said it agreed with the CAC’s comments in the Manheim case, to the effect that there was nothing unusual about a bargaining unit including a number of different types of workers with variations of terms and conditions and the Union had many such recognition agreements.

14) The Union noted that in its written submissions, the Employer focussed almost entirely on operational matters. They did not say who would undertake collective bargaining or at what level such bargaining would take place. There was no reason why the relevant operational management could not be involved in the bargaining process.

15) The Union reiterated that the proposed bargaining unit was clearly appropriate, in the sense of being a “workable vehicle” for collective bargaining. The Union understood the Employer’s position to be that, because the contract to provide services at Abercrombie House would be re-tendered in April 2023, and it was extremely unlikely that it would be awarded contracts for both security and facilities management staff, it was not appropriate for such staff to be included in the same bargaining unit. The Union stated that it understood the relevant date to be October 2023, but regardless of which date was correct, the Union’s position was that possible events were not a relevant consideration, as a decision on the outcome of the future procurement was uncertain and therefore it should not be made based on speculation as to what might happen in the future. The CAC should consider the position as it stands. Other procedures were available if and when there was a material change of circumstances. The Union referred to UCATT and Critical Path Associates (TUR1/177/02) which emphasised that where there was a change of structure within a business, the business would be entitled to make an application to derecognise the Union. Further, Part II of Schedule A1 provided a detailed procedure for the review of bargaining arrangements in the event of a change affecting the bargaining unit.

16) The Union stated that even if the Employer did not secure the contract for the security or facilities management work in April 2023, the definition of the bargaining unit as proposed by the Union would still be workable. If the Employer secured a contract for facilities management work but not security work, the security staff currently employed by the Employer at Abercrombie House would either TUPE transfer to the new contractor (in which case they would no longer be employees of the Employer), be redeployed within the Employer’s organisation (in which case they would no longer be working at Abercrombie House) or be made redundant. Therefore, they would no longer fall within the scope of the bargaining unit.

17) The Union observed that there were existing national and local bargaining arrangements with the Employer where recognition agreements covered different types of workers on different pay levels (although it acknowledged that in some cases security staff were not included as the Employer did not employ security operatives).

18) The Union accepted the desirability of avoiding small, fragmented bargaining units, stating that its proposed bargaining unit had a clear and identifiable boundary with no room for doubt whether any particular worker fell into or outside the bargaining unit. The Union made reference to the case of R (Lidl Limited) v Central Arbitration Committee 2017 ICR 1145, in which the Court of Appeal said at paragraph 36:

“It has long been regarded as undesirable (to use the statutory term) that employers should have to negotiate in more than one forum and, more particularly, with more than one trade union in respect of parts of their workforce who were not essentially different. At the very least, conducting two or more sets of negotiations where one would do is wasteful of time and effort. But there is also the risk of inconsistent outcomes, which can breed anomalies and discontent between comparable groups of workers (including, though certainly not only, in an equal pay context).”

19) In contrast the Union said that the approach the Employer argued for would unnecessarily divide the workforce up into two small bargaining units and would be wasteful of both time and effort. The Union argued that the Employer’s proposed bargaining unit would involve unnecessary duplication of work, in that it would require separate meetings for each bargaining unit. The Union contended that it did not make sense to have two sets of meetings to discuss what would largely be the same issues affecting two similar groups of employees.

20) The Union submitted that it was very experienced in conducting negotiations involving bargaining units which included workers doing a range of different jobs. It stated that most issues would be common to all of the workers in the bargaining unit. If there was a specific issue which only affected a particular role, it could easily be raised as a separate agenda item. The Union further submitted that it did not accept that having a bargaining unit which included security staff would, somehow, lead to disputes between different groups of workers. It stated that if there were to be such a dispute, it would be an internal matter for the Union to resolve, with its members, so that it could then present an agreed collective position to the Employer. The Union maintained that having separate bargaining units carried with it the risk of disputes with different groups of workers, and the Union had some experience of this friction arising.

21) The Union noted that the employees in its proposed bargaining unit were all front-line workers at similar rates of pay, at or slightly above the National Living Wage. It acknowledged that within the bargaining unit some employees were salaried and some were hourly-paid, but this was for historical reasons, and new starters were all hourly-paid.

22) Commenting on the Employer’s argument that security staff were subjected to different levels of security clearance and that this was a distinguishing feature, the Union believed the Employer put more weight on this argument than it could conceivably bear. The security clearance level applicable to any role laid down by Government was not negotiable, and national security vetting was carried out by the HR department of the relevant department. The security staff were all front-line workers.

4. Summary of the Employer’ s submissions

23) The Employer, represented at the hearing on 27 January 2023 only by Ms Thomas of counsel, acknowledged that the relevant test was of compatibility (Kwik-Fit). However, the statutory factors were important, and most situations were fact-sensitive based on the particular working arrangements.

24) The Employer provided background to the facilities management contract it held for the FCDO Abercrombie House site, including its acquisition of the business of Interserve Facilities Management Limited in December 2020. It explained that during the period between 2018 and 2020 Interserve had a number of financial challenges across the business which ultimately led to the sale in December 2020. As part of the Employer’s strategy behind the purchase of Interserve, there was a requirement for consolidation of the combined organisational structure, this commenced post acquisition and resulted in changes in the control of certain service lines under a national, not local, structure. Security was one of the first services to be changed in October 2021 where the ex-Interserve security personnel were moved from the Employer’s Facilities Management Services division to the Business Services division where all security contracts are now located within the Employer’s structure.

25) The Employer explained that it was contracted to deliver services such as Security, Cleaning, Porterage, Front of House/Reception and Engineering on the Abercrombie House Government contract.  Following the reorganisation, security was part of Business Services within the Employer’s divisional business structure and Cleaning, Porterage, Front of House/Reception and Engineering services were part of Facilities Management (bundle pp 317, 359).

26) The Employer confirmed that voluntary recognition was offered to the Union for Abercrombie House upon receipt of the voluntary recognition request, but the offer was for two separate Recognition Agreements. The Employer stated that it operated with a managerial, procedural and commercial separation between general facilities management services and security services. There was a number of legitimate reasons for the separation of the bargaining unit for the Abercrombie House contract. At Abercrombie House teams provided a number of Facilities Management services, Cleaning, Porterage, Reception, Engineering and Security. The team was made up of 25 employees of which 14 were employed as part of the security service hourly paid provision and 11 operatives within facilities management. Due to the nature of security, it was generally seen across the sector that security was kept separate from facilities management or managed by a separate team (for example, bundle p396.) This was particularly the case currently across Government, where FCDO and HMRC had separately appointed security companies.

27) In answer to a question from the Panel as to which of the alternative proposed bargaining units it would favour, the Employer clarified that if the Panel did not find that that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was appropriate, an appropriate bargaining unit that was compatible with effective management was one comprising security personnel at Abercrombie House.

28) The Employer put forward several more factors which it said supported the separation of the bargaining units:

(a) Security personnel resource was required round the clock, which was not the case for cleaning operatives;

(b) All security officers needed to be SIA trained and licensed, were first aid trained and were required to be CCTV licensed. Cleaning operatives were not required to be licensed or first aid trained as part of their role;

(c) Monthly security performance meetings were specifically for security contract personnel only;

(d) Higher levels of security clearance were required for security staff. There were additional protocols for incidents, monitoring and collection of evidence. There was specialist training and additional external auditing of the security function, as failures in any part of the security business could bring significant commercial and reputational risk.. The security teams were required to handle sensitive information which would get into the public domain. Cleaning operatives were not permitted to have access to that sensitive information;

(e) Since November 2022, security staff were higher-paid than cleaning staff, because of market forces in the security industry.

29) The Employer submitted that these factors established that its preferred separate bargaining units were compatible with effective management of the Abercrombie House contract.

30) The Employer provided examples of recognition arrangements where security and cleaning were governed by separate recognition agreements with the same trade union. It contended that the need avoid small, fragmented bargaining units within an undertaking was not an issue within its business as it recognised many unions who made up smaller bargaining units across the business as stand alone, sector or skill set dependant. It contended that the Union’s bargaining unit was not reflective of the compatibility of effective management provision set out in paragraph 19B of Schedule A1. The facilities management and security businesses on the Abercrombie House contract needed to be operationally and financially independent to optimise the contract specific requirements of both businesses to ensure effective management.

31) The Employer noted that under the current re-tendering process for Abercrombie House, security was tendered separately, emphasising its distinctiveness. The Employer had tendered for all the work under three separate tenders but would not be successful in all and the decision was expected in March 2023 with handover in October 2023. What was clear was that security would maintain its integrity whereas facilities management would be split.

32) As to the specific factors, the views of the Union and the Employer were clear; there were no exiting bargaining arrangements for this group of employees but the Employer had provided examples from other Government contracts where security was kept separate and little assistance could be gained from arrangements with other employers; the reason for avoiding fragmented bargaining units was that an employer might face separate bargaining arrangements for employees who were not basically different, but in this instance, there were fundamental differences between security and other staff.

33) In answer to a question from the Panel, Ms Thomas provided details of the reporting and decision-making lines for its Business Sectors, with final responsibility resting with the respective Managing Directors of the sectors.

5. Considerations

34) The Panel begins with the statutory framework. The Panel is required, by paragraph 19(2) of the Schedule, 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. Paragraphs 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) of the Schedule so far as they do not conflict with that need. The matters listed in paragraph 19B(3) are, as stated above: (a) the views of the employer and the union; (b) existing national and local bargaining arrangements; (c) the desirability of avoiding small, fragmented bargaining units within an undertaking; (d) 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 (e) 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.”

35) In reaching its decision, the Panel has taken into account the views of the Union and the Employer as expressed in the written submissions and the oral submissions by Ms Tether and Ms Thomas and summarised above, and the documentary evidence submitted by the parties. It has considered this material against the statutory requirements in paragraphs 19 and 19B of the Schedule.

36) The Panel’s first responsibility is to decide whether the bargaining unit suggested by the Union is appropriate. That does not require the Panel to determine whether it is the most appropriate bargaining unit; merely whether it is appropriate. The focus is on the question of whether the bargaining unit is compatible with effective management. That involves consideration of whether the bargaining unit proposed is compatible with effective management rather than whether it is compatible with the most effective management, or the precise management structure that the Employer wishes to adopt: Kwik-Fit.

37) Against the background of that overall responsibility, to which it will return, the Panel has considered the matters listed in paragraph 19B(3) of the Schedule, reminding itself that these factors must not conflict with the need for the unit to be compatible with effective management.

38) First, the Union and the Employer have clearly set out their views and the Panel has had regard to them. The Union contends that its proposed bargaining unit covering the whole of the Employer’s workforce at Abercrombie House is appropriate as being compatible with effective management; the Employer says it is not and the workforce should be separated out into two bargaining units for security staff and for facilities management staff and the Panel should determine in this application a bargaining unit covering only the security staff.

39) Second, there are no existing bargaining arrangements for this workforce at local or national level. The Panel derives no assistance from bargaining arrangements outside the particular commercial context of, using the terms broadly, facilities management contracts with Government agencies. The Employer has several collective agreements for staff in this area but the Panel saw no evidence of separate bargaining agreements in other locations for security and facilities management staff such as the Employer seeks in this application; where security staff were not part of the bargaining arrangements, this was because there were different employers.

40) Third, the Union’s proposed bargaining unit would not create a small, fragmented bargaining unit within the meaning of paragraph 19 of the Schedule. The decision in Lidl makes it clear that the provision has the purpose of avoiding numerous small units where collective bargaining occurs. But the Employer recognises the Union for groups of workers at several of its sites, and the Union’s proposal creates a single bargaining unit for all staff at a single, clearly-defined group of workers at a specific site, Abercrombie House. On the other hand, the Employer’s proposed arrangement would lead to two small bargaining units for staff at the site. Whilst the recognised trade union would be the same, the Panel considers the creation of two such units is undesirable unless some features of the relevant employees merit it. It would create two separate bargaining structures and processes for a small group of workers involving two sets of negotiations and the resultant inefficiencies and duplication of effort. The risk would arise of different outcomes from the negotiations leading to friction between staff.

41) Fourth, as to the characteristics of the workers within the proposed bargaining unit, the Panel notes that the Union’s proposal involves collective bargaining for employees with different job functions within facilities management. The experience of the Panel is that bargaining units including a number of different job functions are commonplace, and indeed the Employer’s proposal of a separate bargaining unit of facilities management workers leads to that outcome. The Panel notes that although the upwards operational reporting lines differ, at site level workers report to the same site management in the form of the Workplace Manager. The Employer has sought to distinguish the security staff from the others: they work round the clock; their security duties require enhanced security clearance and access to confidential information or secure areas of the site; they are required to have additional qualifications; their rates of pay are higher; and they are now attached to a different section of the business following an operational restructure which would require the involvement of a different chain of line management.

42) Different job functions inevitably involve differences in duties. The Panel noted again that there is nothing unusual about collective bargaining on a geographical basis with a bargaining unit including a number of different types of workers with different terms and conditions. The issue for the Panel is the significance of the differences for collective bargaining on pay, hours and holidays, not operational line management, and recognises that different outcomes may arise for workers from a single negotiating process.

43) The Panel noted that security staff at Abercrombie House are front-line workers who are paid at only slightly higher rates than other facilities management staff and nothing in their duties shows fundamental differences in their roles which would render it incompatible with effective management for them to be part of a single bargaining unit. The Employer has not persuaded the Panel that there would be real practical difficulties in negotiating with a single bargaining unit. Whilst the Panel recognised that the Employer has organised its business so as to place security staff within a different business area, there was no clear reason why the Employer could not ensure that representatives of each business sector took part in collective bargaining with the workers at the site or that any differences in responsibilities are recognised in the negotiating process.

44) Finally, the location of the workers is at the single Abercrombie House site, strongly supporting the adoption of a single bargaining unit at the site.

45) The Panel has considered the significance of the current tendering process at Abercrombie House. The Panel recognises that the process may result in security and other facilities management staff going in different directions, possibly to different employers. There are provisions within the Schedule if that happens and affects the bargaining unit. The Panel also recognises that the tendering outcome may be known within a few weeks. But the outcome of that is as yet uncertain, and the Panel is clear that it must make its determination of the bargaining unit as matters are now rather than as they may be in the future.

46) The Panel has brought together its findings on the specific factors and asking itself the overarching question required of it, finds that the bargaining unit put forward by the Union is appropriate as being compatible with effective management. The Panel recognises the Employer’s case that the separate bargaining units for which it contends are compatible with its organisational structures. But for the reasons it has given, and reminding itself that when considering compatibility with effective management, the focus is on the management and determination of issues about pay, hours and holidays by means of collective bargaining, rather than day-to-day operational line management of staff, the Panel finds that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit is appropriate..

6. Decision

47) The Panel’s decision is that the appropriate bargaining unit is that specified by the Union in its application, as amended during this hearing, namely:

“Security personnel, facilities management staff (cleaning and maintenance), catering/kitchen staff and mail room staff working for Mitie at Abercrombie House, Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) Eaglesham Road, East Kilbride, G75 8EA.

For the purposes of this definition ‘staff’ covers the following job roles (or similar titles in these areas of work):

• Cleaners/housekeeping/cleaning team leader

• Security guards/operatives

• Security supervisors/ line managers

• Maintenance workers

• Mail/post room operative/staff

• Catering/Kitchen general assistants

• Catering/Kitchen chefs/supervisors

• All ‘first line’ management roles, namely; Chef Manager (also referred to as Catering Manager), Cleaning Manager, Security Duty Manager, and Site Security Manager (also referred to as Abercrombie Site Manager, but excluding the Workplace Manager (also referred to as Facilities Manager).”

Panel

Mr Stuart Robertson, Panel Chair

Mr Alistair Paton

Mr Paul Morley

14 February 2023

7. Appendix

Names of those who attended the hearing:

For the Union:

Sharon Leslie - PCS Facilities Management Industrial Officer

Steve Cawkswell – PCS National Officer

Helen Flanagan – PCS Industrial Officer

Eddie Storrie – PCS Local Representative

Melanie Tether – Counsel

Rachel Halliday – Solicitor

Amber Davies – Trainee Solicitor

For the Employer:

Rebecca Thomas – Counsel

Mark Hamilton – Partner, Dentons UK & Middle East LLP

Laura Anthony – Associate, Dentons UK & Middle East LLP

Sharon O’Neill – HR Business Partner

Andrew Rawdon – Sector Director Central Government

Mike Lee – Account Director

Catriona Weir – Legal Director, Employment Law

Nick Shepherd – Head of HR