Decision

Bargaining Unit Decision

Updated 13 March 2019

Case Number: TUR1/1062 (2018)

1 October 2018

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DETERMINATION OF THE BARGAINING UNIT

The Parties:

PDAU

and

Boots Management Services Ltd

1. Introduction

1) PDAU (the Union or PDA Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 24 July 2018 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Boots Management Services Ltd (the Employer or Boots) for a bargaining unit comprising “The registered and pre-registration pharmacists at levels 5, 6 and 7 who are employed by Boots Management Services Ltd”. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 25 July 2018. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 1 August 2018 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 Chairman established a Panel to deal with the case. The Panel consisted of Her Honour Judge Stacey, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Roger Roberts and Mr Paul Talbot. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Linda Lehan. For the purpose of this decision Mr Simon Faiers deputised for Mr Roger Roberts.

3) By a decision dated 17 August 2018 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 hearing was held on 28 September 2018 and the names of those who attended the hearing are appended to this decision.

4) The Panel is required, by paragraph 19(2) of the Schedule 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, within the decision period, which in this case expires 2 October 2018.

2. Background history

5) The Union’s desire to be recognised by the Employer has a considerable history, some of which is relevant for the purposes of this decision. The Union first applied for recognition in 2012 (CAC case ref TUR1/823(2012). However the application foundered, since shortly before the Union’s application, a non-independent union, the Boots Pharmacists Association (BPA) entered into an agreement with the Employer (the BPA Agreement) to collectively bargain for negotiation relating to facilities for officials and machinery for consultation. which was found to be effective in blocking the PDA Union’s application for recognition in respect of pay, hours and holidays (see 2012) (PDAU v Boots & Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2017] EWCA Civ 66).

6) Thereafter members of the PDA Union applied to the CAC for the de-recognition of the BPA (CAC case number TUR6/003(2017) Parker & ors & BPA & Boots Management Services Ltd) which was accepted by the CAC Panel. The parties did not agree which workers were covered by the BPA Agreement. The Employer and BPA submitted that the BPA Agreement covered “All pharmacists registered with the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) or Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland (PSNI) (excluding those of Area Management status or equivalent and those more senior to them) and pre-registration Graduates, working for Boots in the UK and employed by Boots Management Services Ltd”. The PDA Union considered it to be narrower in scope and did not extend to the higher echelons of Boots. It required determination by the Panel. At a hearing held on 19 January 2018, the issues were fully canvassed and detailed findings of fact made. The Panel heard oral evidence from Dr Matthew Blain for Boots, David Greer (assisted by Paul Robinson) for the BPA and Mark Pitt from the PDA Union on behalf of the applicants. The parties were represented by the same counsel as today who both made full submissions, both orally and in writing. Following that hearing the Panel decided that the bargaining unit was: “…..the registered and preregistration pharmacists at levels 5, 6 and 7 who are employed by the Employer” (the BPA Bargaining Unit) as set out in the Panel’s decision of 16 February 2018, entitled Determination of the Ballot Constituency)

7) A secret ballot was then conducted of the workers in the BPA Bargaining Unit. 86.63% voted in favour of derecognition representing 41.02% of the BPA Bargaining Unit. The BPA Agreement was duly declared terminated by the Panel on 11 June 2018. With the BPA Agreement no longer in place as an impediment to the PDA Union’s aspiration for recognition, the PDA Union then submitted this application on 24 July 2018, with a proposed bargaining unit identical to the BPA Bargaining Unit. As explained in paragraph 3 above, the application was accepted and the stage reached for determination of the bargaining unit.

3. The evidence before the Panel

8) At the hearing of 28 September 2018 the Panel heard evidence from Dr Blain for Boots and Mr Pitt for the Union. Where there was dispute between the parties we make our findings of fact on the balance of probabilities. The burden lies on the Union to prove that its proposed bargaining unit is appropriate in accordance with paragraph 19 of the Schedule in the first instance.

4. The law

9) Both parties were in agreement as to the applicable law and correct way for the Panel to approach the question. 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) states 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: 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 he 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.”

10) Both parties had diligently researched the previous CAC decisions on disputed bargaining units and had prepared a bundle of authorities. They were of assistance, but these cases mainly turn on their facts and the specifics of each workplace and the quality of the evidence both sides produce to support their respective positions. Individual CAC cases are perhaps less helpful than reading the words of the Schedule. The Court of Appeal from time to time sets out general guidance, most recently in R(Lidl Ltd) v CAC and another (GMB) [2017] ICR 1145, reminding us that the structure of the Schedule adopts “a broad criterion of “appropriateness”, subject to specified considerations to be “taken into account”, rather than setting hard edged criteria,” which “reflects an intention on the Part of Parliament to allow full range to the expert judgment of the CAC in making decisions about bargaining units” and reminds that the observations of Elias J (as he was then) in Kwik-Fit (GB Ltd) v CAC [2002]EWHC 277 (Admin), approved by the Court of Appeal [2002] ICR 1212, remain apt. They are referred to in paragraph 9 above.

11) During the hearing an interesting discussion took place with both Mr Reade QC and Mr Hendy QC concerning the distinction between consultation and negotiation. Both parties agreed that whilst that was a fascinating area ripe for further jurisprudence and exploration, this case did not turn on the legal distinction between the two activities, but on what happens in practice and this Panel’s particularly extensive experience in industrial relations would have a good understanding of the distinction. No point of law therefore arises.

5. The issue between the parties

12) The Union’s proposed bargaining unit (the PBU) was broader than that advanced by the Employer as an alternative bargaining unit (ABU). Using Venn diagram terminology the ABU was a subset of the PBU. It was common ground that store based pharmacists numbering approximately 5,400 employees should be in the bargaining unit.

13) The disputed categories of worker were: (1) pre-registration pharmacists or pre-registration graduates (the terms were used interchangeably); (2) support office roles, which could be sub-categorised as (i) where all the role holders are required to be pharmacists; (ii) roles where some of the post holders must be pharmacists; and (iii) roles which do not require any of the post holders to be pharmacists, but a number of the workers in those roles happen to be pharmacists; (3) field based roles with the same three sub-categorisations as for the support office roles; (4) employees who for historic reasons work for Walgreens Boots Alliance Group whilst remaining as employees of Boots; and (5) pharmacist store managers.

6. Parties submissions

14) Both sides made helpful, and helpfully concise, yet comprehensive, submissions both at the hearing and in writing in advance. We wish to record our thanks and appreciation, once again, to the parties and their representatives – both counsel and their instructing solicitors - for their work at short notice which has enabled us to comply with the time period laid out in the Schedule and provided much assistance: we are extremely grateful.

15) We also wish to record our thanks to both witnesses from whom we heard: Dr Blain who had also produced extremely helpful organisation charts and statistics, and Mr Pitt for the Union. They dealt with all our questions patiently and efficiently.

7. Summary of the submissions made by the Union

16) In closing submission Mr Hendy for the Union succinctly set out three main points. Firstly, since the BPU was identical to the BPA Bargaining Unit, it was clearly compatible with effective management and met the statutory test of appropriateness precisely because it was the bargaining unit that had been chosen by the Employer and BPA and which had been successfully operated for 6 years. The distinction in practice between machinery and arrangements for consultation was in reality no different to that required for negotiation, and the Union’s PBU was tried and tested. We already know it works and therefore it is appropriate. Secondly, the professional status of pharmacists in a pharmacist led business is an important defining feature of the workers concerned and one that is entitled to be respected. The Union seeks an opportunity to bargain for all registered pharmacists to receive enhanced pay by dint of their pharmacy registration whatever role they perform within grades 5, 6 and 7. Including the field based and support office workers who are pharmacists in the bargaining unit will enable the Union to do this. He relied on the CAC decision of NUJ v Bristol Evening Post & Press Ltd (TUR1/64(2001) as a reverse image analogy. In that case the fact that some of the writing in the newspaper and other journalistic work was undertaken by non-journalistic staff, such as messengers and secretaries, did not prevent a bargaining unit only comprising journalists from being appropriate.

17) Mr Hendy’s third argument was that as in NUJ v Buzzfeed (UK) Ltd (TUR1/1006(2017)) a bargaining unit comprising a number of different roles could easily be seen to be appropriate.

8. Summary of the submissions made by the Employer

18) Mr Reade QC’s main points were that there was a world of difference between consultation and negotiation and it did not follow that the BPA Agreement which had nothing whatsoever to do with negotiating pay, hours and holidays would amount to an appropriate bargaining unit for bargaining on these matters. He submitted that it would be fundamentally wrong to categorise workers by reference to a professional qualification and not the role they perform for the company. It would not be appropriate, to include, for example, a registered pharmacist who had sought a change of career and moved into HR, in a bargaining unit in which none of her or his HR colleagues would be included. Yet that would be the consequence of the Union’s PBU. There would be a conflict of interest for store managers to be in the same bargaining unit as those that they managed as they would have some influence on matters relating to their pay, hours and holiday. Pre-registration pharmacists were on 12 month contracts and were different to those who had qualified. The Walgreen secondees had no connection with the Employer.

19) Both parties will see that we have drawn heavily from their respective submissions in our conclusions and analysis of the facts.

9. The facts

20) Boots is proud to be a pharmacy led company, having originally been called Boots the Chemist, describing itself as “the pharmacy-led, health and beauty retail business in the UK” Boots is part of the US Walgreen Boots Alliance group of companies. Boots provides services to approximately 2,500 stores across the UK with support office services in Nottingham and various filed based services across the UK. A very small number of individuals employed by Boots for historic reasons work for Walgreen Boots Alliance (WBA) and they are not managed or controlled by Boots. Their pay hours and holiday are determined by WBA and they have little, if any, connection with Boots, other than as their nominal employer and the name on the payslip and contract of employment.

21) Pharmacy is at the heart of Boots. Any pharmacist employee of Boots is encouraged to maintain their professional status whether or not their role requires it and Boots meets the registration fees. Boots is the largest UK employer of pharmacists. Dr Blain explained that Boots considers pharmacists to be special and it is a noble profession.

22) As with many other professions, it is an important part of one’s professional identity to be a pharmacist regardless of whether or not the pharmacist is performing a pharmacy role. It is a badge of honour and identity to be able to call oneself a pharmacist and be part of a highly skilled and regulated body. There are a considerable number of professional obligations and responsibilities for members of the General Pharmaceutical Council the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland. Generally speaking workers who are pharmacists are conscious of a common bond, professional standing and group identity.

10. Pay

23) The Employer has fairly wide pay bands for all salaried staff and has a market based pay approach and conducts an annual pay review across the board. The Employer bands staff into different levels. The only ones we are concerned with are levels 5, 6 and 7. Central to the Employer’s approach to pay and the annual pay review is an assessment of the market salary for the role of the employee. Some roles have their own market pay range, which is the case for many store based roles. Some roles do not have their own pay range and are assigned to a market pay range based on the level of the role, which occurs commonly in support office and field based roles. Their market pay is determined by function. Different market ranges apply to different functions, so for example a Level 5 HR role would have a different market range to Level 5 in IT.

24) Some support office and field based roles require registered pharmacists and they have their own qualified pharmacist pay ranges.

25) Each year the Employer calculates the market base for the various roles and groups of roles and sets a salary range of around 80-120% of what it considers to be the median market salary. Individual pay within the range is determined by a number of factors such as skills, experience and qualifications.

26) There is a discretionary non-contractual element of pay, applicable to all roles assessed by reference to individual performance. Different maximum bonus potential percentages of basic salary are set for different groups of roles and levels.

11. Hours and holidays

27) Support office roles generally have a 37.5 hour basic working week and normal office hours, whereas store based staff work a 40 hour week. The basic holiday entitlement of 25 days per annum increases with length of service. Very different systems are in place for the booking of annual leave and the amount of notice required to book annual leave for the in store roles to the office support and field based roles and there are particular requirements where the employee is the Responsible Pharmacist.

28) The store based staff are seen as homogenous, and the support office and field based staff are managed and organised along different lines.

12. Proposed Bargaining Unit

13. Store based pharmacists

29) Both sides agreed that the 5,400 store based pharmacists, relief pharmacists, care service pharmacists and advanced practitioner pharmacists at levels 5, 6 and 7 should be in the bargaining unit. For simplicity we refer to them collectively as the Store Based Pharmacists.

14. Pre-registration pharmacists

30) The PBU includes approximately 350 pre-registration pharmacists, on fixed term 12 month contracts, with an anticipation and expectation that they will be retained by Boots on qualification. Approximately 75% are retained each year. This group is very closely aligned with their qualified colleagues as they are being trained to be Store Based Pharmacists, under close professional supervision. They are the Boots’ pharmacists and pharmacist store managers of the future and part of the Employer’s succession planning, hopefully moving seamlessly to positions of Store Based Pharmacist on registration.

31) Their pay is determined in July, unlike the rest of Boots’ workforce which has a November pay review. For statutory and regulatory reasons the pay setting date cannot be aligned with the November pay review. There are also a number of statutory requirements in their training.

15. Pharmacist store managers

32) There are approximately 1,000 pharmacy store managers who are required to be pharmacists in order to undertake the role and they are required to perform the Responsible Pharmacist role in the store for at least part of the week. Their work can vary depending on the size of the store, but as Responsible Pharmacist they will undertake pharmacy work and be subject to pharmacy rostering along with other pharmacists and subject to the 40 hour working week applicable to store based staff.

33) As managers they lead on aspects such as operational, people, financial and trading as well as pharmacy professional and compliance matters. In small stores – called local pharmacies - their role will effectively be that of Store-Based Pharmacist, with some additional management duties. In the largest stores they will have more management duties than pharmaceutical ones, but will act as Responsible Pharmacist at least one day per week. In some of the larger stores their direct reports may be pre-registration or Store Based Pharmacists and they may have some disciplinary powers in respect of them. Some pharmacist store managers have some limited discretion in relation to their pharmacists as part of the annual pay increase. Most pharmacy store managers work as Store Based Pharmacists for most of the time.

34) Pharmacist store managers have a separate job codes and greatly enhanced reward package to their non-pharmacist manager colleagues, such as the dispensing store managers and retail store managers.

16. WBA based pharmacists

35) There are 4 individuals at level 5, 6 or 7 who happen also to be pharmacists who are on permanent secondment to WBA and are therefore in the PBU. The Employer has no management control or input into their pay, hours or holiday, but for historic reasons remains the employer of the individuals in name only.

17. Support office and Field based roles

36) There are approximately a total of 150 pharmacists in support office or field based roles who fall within the PBU. The support office and field based roles are different to the store based roles – support office staff work from Nottingham mainly, and the field based staff travel between Boots stores. Both groups have their pay determined according to the various functional pay ranges. Some support and field office roles must be filled only by qualified pharmacists, such as the pharmacy operations governance manager and healthcare academy delivery manager. These number approximately 80 workers.

37) Other roles require some, but not all, of the post holders to be pharmacists such as pharmacy development manager; of whom there are 50 workers who are pharmacists and thus fall within the PBU and 57 who are not pharmacists and fall outside it.

38) The third sub category is those field based and support office staff workers who happen to be pharmacists but are not required by the Employer to be pharmacists. Those who have perhaps chosen a career change but retained their pharmacy registration. There are 7 individuals in this category and 59 others performing the same job function who are outside the PBU. For example two out of 26 HR partners are pharmacists, and one of the 12 assistant marketing managers is a pharmacist.

39) The first and second categories have their own market based pay range. There is a pharmacy enhancement paid to them. In the last category the pharmacy qualification has no effect on the pay of the role or the grade and no pharmacy enhancement is available. The Union explained that it would very much like to bargain collectively to achieve a pharmacy enhancement for its members in non-pharmacy roles, and to negotiate to increase the pharmacy enhancement uplift for those in the first two categories.

40) The Employer’s argument was that even for the support office and field based roles that required pharmacists to fill the post, the physical conditions of the work were fundamentally different to the store based pharmacist role.

18. BPA Agreement

41) The BPA Agreement provided for collective bargaining only for the very limited purpose of negotiation relating to facilities for officials and machinery for consultation. The BPA was categorically not recognised for the purposes of pay, hours and holidays (see CAC TUR1/823(2012) decision on whether paragraph 35 applies to the application of 29 January 2013,). It was precisely because of the limitations in the BPA Agreement that the Panel concluded, (wrongly as it turned out) that it was irrelevant to the Union’s initial recognition application. The consultation that the BPA and Employer undertook under the BPA Agreement was purely consultation, even though it included discussion with BPA input on pay proposals, significant changes to working practice, changes to terms and conditions and such like. It did not resemble negotiation.

42) The Panel considers that there is an important distinction between consultation and negotiation and draws on its experience of the considerable differences between workplace consultation fora and structures and collective bargaining, or negotiating arrangements. It is easy to spot in practice, even if difficult to define and the BPA Agreement was easily distinguished from a collective bargaining agreement, as it is generally understood in industrial relations.

19. Considerations and conclusions

43) We remind ourselves that since the parties have not reached agreement on the bargaining unit by the end of the appropriate period, the CAC must decide if the “proposed bargaining unit” is appropriate, but it is not our remit to define a more appropriate bargaining unit if it is satisfied that the one proposed by the union is compatible with effective management, and therefore appropriate. (Unite the Union and Wheelbase Engineering Ltd TUR 1/1006(2017). Further, in GMB and Carillion PLC TUR 1/963(2016): “The panel notes that it cannot reject the union’s proposed bargaining unit because it feels that a different unit would be more appropriate nor, in considering whether it is compatible with effective management, can it consider whether it is the most effective or desirable unit in that context.”

44) In UNIFI and Nottingham Building Society TUR 1/328(2003), the CAC Panel noted that the statutory test of appropriateness is set at a comparatively modest level. It refers to the union’s proposed bargaining unit being “compatible with effective management” rather than requiring a more exacting test. “Effective management” had been deemed by the CAC to be understood in terms of achieving workable methods of resolving issues of pay, hours and holidays by means of collective bargaining (GMPU and Ritrama (UK) Ltd (TUR1/178(2002), 11 July 2002).

45) The Panel does not therefore agree with the attractively simple argument that because the Union’s PBU is the same as the BPA Bargaining Unit, it follows that without the need for further consideration, the PBU is appropriate. The fundamental difference of the purpose and scope of the BPA Agreement as compared to a mechanism for collective bargaining on pay, hours and holiday would make such an approach an oversimplification.

46) It is therefore necessary to conduct a more detailed analysis of the facts.

47) It is necessary to address the contested constituent parts of the PBU separately to assess the appropriateness of the Unions PBU. We have no hesitation in concluding that it is entirely appropriate for the pre-registration graduates to be part of the bargaining unit. They work alongside and share the characteristics of their qualified colleagues in store, and hours, holiday and rostering arrangements are all aligned. The fact of the different pay setting date is a minor difference. So too is the fact that rates are partly determined by NHS training grants especially relevant. The pre-registration graduates are the pharmacists of the future and the Employer considers them as the start of a continuum and will. In the words of Maya Angelou ^{[footnote 1]} they are more alike than they are disalike to Store Based Pharmacists and it is appropriate of the Union to include them.

48) The pharmacist store managers are likewise part of the same continuum. They are subject to the same hours and holiday strictures as the other store based pharmacists pre- and post-registration and are effectively managed together. Their common bond as pharmacists is one of their characteristics (see para 19B(3)(d)) of the Schedule). The minor input they may have relating to pay is an insignificant difference, and their disciplinary powers, such as they are, are irrelevant in collective bargaining on pay, hours and holidays. The argument that they had more in common with the retail and dispensing store managers was not made on the evidence as the pharmacy function is different and the pay and rostering arrangements are different. The Pharmacy store managers too are appropriate to be included.

49) The two areas where we had most concern were the Walgreen 4 (as they were termed during the hearing) and the 7 workers who were pharmacists at levels 5, 6 and 7, but whose jobs had no requirement for a pharmacy qualification. They comprise a tiny fraction of the PBU – 11 individuals out of over 7,000. However, neither party suggested a de minimus rule applied or that we should take a broad brush. We are clear that a bargaining unit that includes either group is not appropriate. It would cut across existing arrangements and distinguish them from their colleagues whom they work alongside inappropriately. It would be incompatible with effective management for the 7 pharmacists in support roles such as HR to be collectively bargained for when their other colleagues doing exactly the same job are not and it would risk division and discord.

50) So, for that reason, we conclude that the PBU is not appropriate. What then would be an appropriate bargaining unit, taking account of the ABU proposed by the Employer?

51) It will be immediately evident that we do not agree with the Employer that the store managers and pre-registration pharmacists should be excluded. All Store Based Pharmacists and graduate trainees share sufficient common terms and arrangements in material respects and their inclusion would avoid a fragmented unit and, importantly, they are all located in stores.

52) The trickiest groups of workers to consider are the support office and field based pharmacists who are required to be pharmacists, either because the post demands it, or because the Employer requires some of the post holders to be pharmacists. The Union made a strong case which it urged upon us that they must be included. It was forcefully put that since they were required to be pharmacists and that was a relevant factor in the annual pay review and they already were entitled to a pharmacist enhancement, it would be compatible with effective management for them to be included. Their membership of the pharmacy profession was a determining feature consistent with their inclusion in the unit.

53) The Employer had no answer to that argument, but instead focussed on the different terms and conditions as between store based staff on the one hand, and support office and field based staff on the other. The location of the support office workers in Nottingham and the field based staff who were neither based in store nor Nottingham HQ was stressed by Mr Reade too.

54) On balance, we conclude that the support office and field based pharmacists are not an easy fit with the store based pharmacists. Of course we agree that some bargaining units can comprise a wide range of job function within them, but all these cases are fact sensitive and context specific. At this employer there is a clear dividing line between the registered and pre-registration pharmacists who work in stores at whatever level (between 5, 6 and 7) and those who do not. Ignoring that distinction is incompatible with effective management. Even though their pay arrangements may be heavily influenced by their pharmacy status, their role and function, and hence their pay, hours and work patterns are distinct and more aligned with their non-pharmacist peers, and, on the evidence before us, this is set to continue to be the case. We conclude that the different treatment of field based and support office staff, as compared to their store based colleagues, outweighs the importance of the shared bond and common feature of being a pharmacist, in the consideration of effective management. Whether or not the support office and field based roles requiring pharmacists could form their own bargaining unit, separate from their store based colleagues, is not for this Panel to decide.

55) In conclusion therefore, we find that the Union’s PBU is not appropriate and that the appropriate bargaining unit is all store based pharmacists in levels 5, 6 and 7. It is compatible with effective management, and existing national and local bargaining arrangements, avoids small fragmented bargaining units within an undertaking, and takes account of the characteristics of the workers falling within the proposed bargaining unit; and the location of workers spread geographically nationwide across the stores.

20. Decision

56) Accordingly, the Panel’s decision is that the Union’s PBU is not an appropriate bargaining unit. The appropriate bargaining unit is all registered and pre-registration store-based pharmacists at levels 5, 6 and 7 who are employed by Boots Management Services Ltd.

Panel

Her Honour Judge Stacey, Panel Chair

Mr Simon Faiers

Mr Paul Talbot

1 October 2018

21. Appendix

Names of those who attended the hearing:

For the Union

John Hendy QC Counsel

Deborah Franks PDAU Solicitor

Mark Pitt PDAU Assistant General Secretary

Paul Day PDAU National Officer

For the Employer

Victoria Butler Senior Employment Lawyer

Dr Matthew Blain Director of HR Operations Boots UK

David Reade QC Counsel

Martin Palmer Counsel

1. From I Know why the Caged Bird Sings. ↩