188体育

Case Number: TUR1/1454(2025)

27 March 2025

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECISION ON WHETHER TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATION

The Parties:

Unite the Union

and

Mitchells & Butlers Retail Limited

1. Introduction

1)聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 Unite the Union (the Union) submitted an application to the Central Arbitration Committee (the CAC) dated 6 March 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Mitchells & Butlers Retail Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising 鈥渆mployees based at the Toby Carvery Bolton (Crompton Way), excluding salaried managers, working in the areas of the Front of House, Back of House, Bar, Kitchen, Waiting/Serving, Cleaning or any employee described as a 鈥楾eam Leader鈥� or 鈥楻etail Assistant鈥�. Specifically, the General Manager, Assistant Manager and Kitchen Manager are excluded.鈥� The location of the bargaining unit was given as 鈥淭oby Carvery Bolton Crompton Way Bolton BL1 8TJ.鈥� The application was received by the CAC on 6 March 2025 and the CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 6 March 2025. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 12 March 2025 which was copied to the Union.

2)聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 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.聽 The Panel consisted of Mr Stuart Robertson, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr John Rawling and Mr Ian Hanson. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Joanne Curtis.

3) 聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 聽The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 20 March 2025.聽 The acceptance period was extended to 7 April 2025 in order to allow time for the parties to comment on the results of a membership check and for the Panel to consider the comments before arriving at a decision. 聽

2. Issues

4)聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Panel is required by paragraph 15 of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule) to decide whether the Union鈥檚 application to the CAC is valid within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9; is made in accordance with paragraphs 11 or 12; is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 33 to 42; and therefore, should be accepted.

3. Summary of the Union鈥檚 application

5)聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 In its application to the CAC the Union stated that it had made a request for recognition to the Employer on 17 February 2025. The Union said that the Employer responded on 20 February 2025 declining the request and stating, 鈥淚 am acknowledging receipt of your letter, dated 17 February 2025 and your letters (x2) sent to Rebecca Whittingham, General Manager of Toby Carvery, Bolton. I confirm that Mitchells & Butlers Retail Ltd does not recognise Unite the Union under Schedule A1, TULCRA, 1992.鈥� The Union attached a copy of its request dated 17 February 2025 together with the Employer鈥檚 response dated 20 February 2025.

6)聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 When asked whether the Union had made a previous application under the Schedule for statutory recognition for workers in the proposed bargaining unit or a similar unit the Union answered 鈥淣o.鈥� The Union stated that, following receipt of the request for recognition, the Employer had not proposed that Acas should be requested to assist the parties.

7)聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Union stated that the total number of workers employed by the Employer was 50,000. The Union stated that there were 31 workers in the proposed bargaining unit. When asked to state the number of union members in the proposed bargaining unit and to provide evidence to support this figure the union answered, 鈥渨e currently have 14 members in the bargaining unit. We can provide the membership list to the CAC, but we have not attached it with this application to preserve confidentiality.鈥� When asked to provide evidence that the majority of workers in the bargaining unit would be likely to support recognition for collective bargaining the Union said that 22 workers in the bargaining unit had signed a petition in support of recognition which the Union said equated to 71% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit. The Union added that it could provide the petition to the CAC but had not attached it to the application in order to preserve confidentiality.

8)聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Union stated that the reason for selecting the proposed bargaining unit was because 鈥渢he employees are all hourly paid 鈥榦perational鈥� hospitality workers at a single site of Toby Carvery, a subsidiary of Mitchells and Butlers. They have a distinct line management structure at local level. They share the same bargaining issues over pay determination, working conditions and health & safety; 15 of them have recently signed a collective grievance.鈥� The Union said that the bargaining unit had not been agreed with the Employer. In answer to the question whether there was any existing recognition agreement which it was aware of which covered any workers in the bargaining unit, the Union answered 鈥淣/A.鈥�

9)聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Union confirmed that it held a current certificate of independence. The Union said that it had copied its application and supporting documents to the Employer on 6 March 2025 and consented to its contact details being provided to Acas.

4. Summary of the Employer鈥檚 response to the Union鈥檚 application

10)聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Employer said that it had received the Union鈥檚 written request for recognition on 17 February 2025. The Employer said that it responded on 20 February 2025 rejecting the request. The Employer confirmed that it had received a copy of the Union鈥檚 application form from the Union on 6 March 2025. The Employer stated that it had not, before receiving a copy of the application form from the Union, agreed the bargaining unit and that it did not agree the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer said that the proposed bargaining unit was not compatible with effective management, in the following terms: 鈥淭oby Carvery Bolton is one of c1,700 pubs and restaurants owned and managed by the Employer. The Employer has up to 41,000 hourly paid front and back of house employees located across the UK, all of which share the same terms and conditions of employment. A bargaining unit as proposed of 31 out of 41,000 hourly paid employees would constitute a small and fragmented bargaining unit.鈥� The Employer said that there were no national and/or local bargaining arrangements. The Employer said that although the proposed bargaining unit consisted of hourly paid employees, the characteristics of the group were different with conflicting interests. The Employer went on to say: 鈥渢here is already a grievance procedure. At the present time the Employer is investigating a collective grievance raised by employees. Anonymous Employee engagement surveys carried out at this site show very high levels of employee engagement, the most recent score was 90.9, the prior survey score was 82 and the score prior to that 84.7.鈥�

11)聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Employer said that it currently employed 47,000 workers and that it agreed with the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit as defined in the Union鈥檚 application The Employer said that there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit. In answer to the question whether it disagreed with the Union鈥檚 estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer said, 鈥渢he Employer is unaware of the union members in the proposed bargaining unit and will require proof that 14 out of 31 (and therefore a minority) members of the proposed bargaining unit are members.鈥�

12)聽聽聽聽聽聽 When asked to give its reasons if it did not consider that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit would be likely to support recognition, the Employer said that it had not been provided with the petition signed by the 22 workers in the bargaining unit and therefore at the present time did not accept that a majority of workers in the bargaining unit were likely to support recognition. The Employer said that it requested proof in relation to any petition, of the date any signatures were given and details of the question posed to employees.

13)聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Employer answered 鈥淣/A鈥� when asked if it was aware of any previous application under the Schedule by the Union in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit and when asked if it had received any other applications in respect of workers in the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer said that it consented to its contact details being forwarded to Acas.

5. The Union鈥檚 comments on the Employer鈥檚 response

14)聽聽聽聽聽聽 In a letter dated 14 March 2025 the Union said that in respect of the Employer鈥檚 objections to the proposed bargaining unit 鈥渢he number of pubs and hourly paid employees, and the employer鈥檚 assertion that hourly paid employees share the same terms and conditions, is not prima facie evidence that the unit is incompatible with effective management. The size of the unit is not relevant to the question of whether recognition of the unit would fragment existing bargaining arrangements. Indeed, the Union notes that in its third objection, the employer asserts there are no bargaining arrangements. The assertion that there are no national and/or local bargaining arrangements, if true, shows that the unit would not fragment existing bargaining arrangements. The proposed membership of the unit is appropriate. The employer is asked to identify how, if at all, front house and back house staff have conflicting interests and how, if at all, any such conflicting interest (which is not accepted) means that the unit is not appropriate. Notwithstanding that the employer has recently accepted a collective grievance raised by workers at the Toby Carvery Bolton site, the Union does not understand the employer鈥檚 grievance procedure to be intended for use to resolve collective issues. The Union questions the relevance of these points to the issue of whether the unit is appropriate. The employer relies upon a past employee engagement survey but has not provided evidence of its contents, how such data was collected, when, or for what purpose. The employer is invited to share the data with the Union so that the Union can better understand its relevance (if any). As it stands, the Union questions the relevance of this data to the issue the CAC must decide, whether the unit is appropriate. Given the employer鈥檚 response, we consider it would be appropriate for the CAC to list a hearing to determine whether the proposed bargaining unit is appropriate within the meaning of paragraph 19, Schedule A1 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.鈥�

6. The membership and support check

15)聽聽聽聽聽聽 To assist in the determination of two of the admissibility criteria specified in the Schedule, namely, whether 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit are members of the union (paragraph 36(1)(a)) and whether a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit (paragraph 36(1)(b)), the Panel proposed an independent check of the level of union membership within the proposed bargaining unit and a petition supplied by the Union. It was agreed with the parties that the Employer would supply to the Case Manager a list of the names, dates of birth and job titles of workers within the proposed bargaining unit, and that the Union would supply to the Case Manager a list of its paid-up members within that unit (including their dates of birth) as well as a copy of its petition. It was explicitly agreed with both parties that, to preserve confidentiality, the respective lists and petition would not be copied to the other party. These arrangements were confirmed in a letter dated 17 March 2025 from the Case Manager to both parties.

16)聽聽聽聽聽聽 The information requested from the Union was received by the CAC on 19 March 2025 and from the Employer on 18 March 2025. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.聽聽聽

17)聽聽聽聽聽聽 The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 31 workers in the Union鈥檚 proposed bargaining unit.聽 The list of members supplied by the Union contained 14 names. According to the Case Manager鈥檚 report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 14 a membership level of 45.16%.

18)聽聽聽聽聽聽 The petition supplied by the Union contained 22 names. Of the 22 names all were in the proposed bargaining unit, a figure that represented 70.97% of the proposed bargaining unit. Of those 22 names, 13 were members of the Union (41.94% of the proposed bargaining unit) and 9 were non-members (29.03% of the proposed bargaining unit). The petition consisted of one sheet of A4 paper and was set out as follows:

鈥淯nite the Union is asking your employer to recognise it for collective bargaining. We have to show the Central Arbitration Committee that a majority of workers favour our application. If you want your employer to recognise Unite for collective bargaining, please sign the petition.

This petition and your personal details will be kept confidential by Unite the Union and will be shared with the Central Arbitration Committee only, who will use these to confidentially verify the level of support for our collective bargaining application. Your employer will not receive your details or a copy of this petition. The petition will be retained by Unite for the duration of the recognition campaign and any associated issues.

I support recognition of Unite as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on pay, hours and holidays.鈥�

The petition showed each signatories: Printed name, Job title, Signature and Date. The signatures were submitted between 15 February 2025 and 21 February 2025.

19)聽聽聽聽聽聽 A report of the result of the membership and support check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 19 March 2025 and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by noon on 24 March 2025.

7. Summary of the parties鈥� comments following the membership and support check

20)聽聽聽聽聽聽 No comments were received from the parties following the membership and support check.

8. Considerations

21)聽聽聽聽聽聽 In determining whether to accept the application the Panel must decide whether the admissibility and validity provisions referred to in paragraph 4 above are satisfied.聽 The Panel has considered carefully the submissions of both parties and all the evidence in reaching its decision.聽

22)聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Panel is satisfied that the Union made a valid request to the Employer within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9 of the Schedule and that its application was made in accordance with paragraph 11. Furthermore, the Panel is satisfied that the application is not rendered inadmissible by any of the provisions in paragraphs 33 to 35 and paragraphs 37 to 42 of the Schedule. The remaining issues for the Panel to decide are whether the admissibility criteria contained in paragraphs 36(1)(a) and paragraph 36(1)(b) are met.

Paragraph 36(1)(a)

23)聽聽聽聽聽聽 Under paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule an application is not admissible unless the Panel decides that members of the union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit.聽

24)聽聽聽聽聽聽 The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 15 to 19 above) showed that 45.16% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 16 above, the Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

25)聽聽聽聽聽聽 For the reasons set out in paragraph 24 above the Panel has decided that members of the union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit as required by paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule.

Paragraph 36(1)(b)

26)聽聽聽聽聽聽 Under paragraph 36(1) of the Schedule, an application is not admissible unless the Panel decides that a majority of the workers constituting the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.

27)聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Union carried out a petition of those workers in the proposed bargaining unit. As described in paragraph 18 above, 70.97% of the proposed bargaining unit added their names to the petition. The Panel has not received any statements from those workers in the proposed bargaining unit who had added their names to the petition stating that they wished to withdraw their support.

28)聽聽聽聽聽聽 On the basis of the evidence before it, the Panel has decided that Union membership of 45.16% when taken with the percentage of non-members signing the petition (29.03%) shows that, on the balance of probabilities, a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit, as required by paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule.

9. Decision

29)聽聽聽聽聽聽 For the reasons given in paragraphs 21-28 above, the Panel鈥檚 decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Mr Stuart Robertson, Panel Chair

Mr John Rawling

Mr Ian Hanson

27 March 2025