Bargaining Unit Decision
Updated 16 July 2026
Applies to England, Scotland and Wales
© Crown copyright 2026
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cac-outcome-cwu-15gifts-ltd/bargaining-unit-decision
Case Number: TUR1/1537(2026)
16 July 2026
CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE
TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992
SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION
DETERMINATION OF THE BARGAINING UNIT
The Parties:
CWU
and
15gifts Ltd
1. Introduction
1) CWU (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 15 April 2026 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by 15gifts Ltd (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising of “All permanent employees, excluding contractors and those in senior leadership team (SLT, the extended leadership team (ELT), and People & Culture (HR)” based at Century House, 15-19 Dyke Road, Brighton BN1 3FE. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 16 April 2026. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 22 April 2026 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 Ms Laura Prince K.C., Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Derek Devereux and Mr Steve Gillan. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kaniza Bibi.
3) By a decision dated 15 May 2026 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.
2. Hearing
4) A virtual hearing was held on 13 July 2026 and the names of those who attended the hearing are appended to this decision. Both parties provided written submissions prior to the hearing together with supporting documentation. The Panel would like to thank the parties for answering the questions raised during the hearing. The information they provided was very helpful to the Panel.
3. Summary of the submissions made by the Union
5) The Union maintained that the bargaining unit should comprise all permanent employees, excluding contractors, members of the Senior Leadership Team, the Extended Leadership Team (ELT), and employees within the People & Culture (HR) function. The Union submitted that all relevant roles were either based at the same location or worked remotely and that the existing management structure, through the Senior Leadership Team (SLT), reflected the scope of the proposed bargaining unit and was therefore compatible with effective management.
6) The Union further argued that members of the ELT held people-management responsibilities and formed part of the wider leadership structure. Their inclusion within the bargaining unit would not have been compatible with effective management, given their role within the senior management framework. At the time of the submission, no internal communication had been issued confirming the disbandment of the ELT, and internal communication groups associated with the ELT remained active.
7) The Union also submitted that members of the People & Culture team carried out HR related functions, including people management and policy development. It was the Union’s view that employees performing such functions should not have been included within the bargaining unit. Furthermore, the Union considered that including only certain roles from within the People & Culture team, while excluding others, could have resulted in a fragmented bargaining unit.
8) The Union stated that it was not aware of any existing local or national collective bargaining arrangements relevant to the application. The Union further submitted that it had complied fully with the CAC process throughout and considered the employer’s delays and failures to meet statutory deadlines to be indicative of union avoidance tactics, which it argued should have been taken into account by the Panel.
9) The Union said that its current position remained unaltered and that the bargaining unit remained as proposed. The Union accepted that the ELT had been reduced from seven roles to two roles and that the two remaining roles were Head of Analytics and Head of Technical Operations (Head of Infrastructure). The Union said that these were still essentially ELT roles and including them within the bargaining unit would not be compatible with effective management. The Union said that as of the date of this hearing an internal communication had not been issued confirming the disbandment of the ELT, and internal communication groups associated with the ELT remained active. The Union acknowledged during the hearing that People & Culture (the HR function), may also have experienced changes but that it did not alter the Union’s position that irrespective of how junior those members of staff that were left were, they should be excluded from the bargaining unit.
4. Summary of the submissions made by the Employer
10) The Employer submitted that the bargaining unit proposed by the Union was not appropriate and that an alternative bargaining unit would better meet the requirements of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The Employer explained that, since its previous submission of 22 May 2026, the business had undergone significant structural change following the conclusion of a collective redundancy process. As a result, the permanent workforce had reduced from approximately 80 employees to 53.
11) The Employer stated that the Extended Leadership Team (ELT) had been formally disbanded and that the People & Culture function had been restructured and that these developments were directly relevant to the assessment of the bargaining unit and that the Panel should determine appropriateness based on the business’s current structure. The Employer noted that 15gifts Ltd operated from a single registered workplace at Century House, Brighton, although most employees worked on either a hybrid or fully remote basis.
12) The Employer opposed the Union’s proposed bargaining unit on the grounds that it excluded the ELT, despite that management tier no longer existing, which it argued rendered the definition unclear and unworkable. The Employer also submitted that excluding all People & Culture employees was inappropriate because the remaining function consisted of a People & Culture Executive, whose duties were primarily administrative and office-management related, and a Senior Talent Acquisition Manager focused on recruitment activity. The Employer stated that neither role carried responsibility for HR policy, pay determination, or strategic people decisions and therefore there was no principled basis for their exclusion.
13) The Employer indicated that it was recruiting a future Head of People & Culture role and proposed that this position should be excluded from any bargaining unit because of its senior leadership responsibilities. The Employer further argued that the Union’s proposed definition no longer reflected the structure of the business and could create uncertainty over bargaining unit membership as the organisation evolved. The Employer therefore proposed an alternative bargaining unit comprising all permanent employees of 15gifts Ltd, excluding members of the Senior Leadership Team (SLT), the future Head of People & Culture, and the Chairman and Non-Executive Director. The Employer submitted that this bargaining unit would comprise 46 employees and would be clear, comprehensive, compatible with effective management, and avoid fragmentation.
14) In relation to the statutory considerations under paragraph 19B, the Employer submitted that excluding the five members of the SLT was necessary because they were responsible for setting company strategy, determining pay structures, and making decisions affecting the terms and conditions of other employees. The Employer explained that the Chairman and Non-Executive Director were also excluded because they did not hold operational roles within the business and their inclusion would be anomalous and it maintained that all other permanent employees should be included within the bargaining unit.
15) The Employer stated that its proposed bargaining unit was broader than that proposed by the Union because it included People & Culture employees and individuals who had previously been members of the ELT. The Employer argued that its proposal was not intended to restrict collective bargaining but rather to ensure that the bargaining unit was clearly defined and workable. The Employer confirmed that there were no existing collective bargaining arrangements within 15gifts Ltd and therefore this consideration did not favour either proposed bargaining unit.
16) The Employer further argued that its proposed unit represented the broadest possible bargaining unit consistent with the exclusion of executive decision-makers and avoided unnecessary fragmentation. By contrast, it contended that the Union’s proposal created an arbitrary distinction by excluding People & Culture employees who otherwise shared the same employment terms and characteristics as the wider workforce. It also argued that reliance on an ELT structure that had been disbanded would create uncertainty and the potential for future disputes. In respect of the characteristics of workers, the Employer submitted that all employees within its proposed bargaining unit were permanent employees who did not exercise authority over company strategy, pay structures, or the employment terms and conditions of other staff. The Employer explained that the workforce operated across technical, operational, customer-facing and support functions under broadly comparable terms and conditions of employment.
17) When questioned during the hearing about the ELT the Employer said there were now only two roles out of the original seven remaining in what was the ELT. These were Head of Analytics and Head of Technical Operations (Head of Infrastructure). The Employer explained that the two workers in these roles were aware that there was no longer an ELT due to the reduction of workers and that they no longer had any leadership role. The Employer said that their responsibilities that existed under that leadership structure, (helping to plan, key communications, taking on stand-alone projects all those responsibilities of being in an extended leadership team) had effectively gone. They were now technically operations and analytics. The Employer did add that they still remained in a head of role and do lead a team. They also stated that the exact structure going forwards had yet to be determined.
18) The Panel asked the Employer for some clarity on the communications that were going out to workers about the issues pertaining to the ELT. The Employer explained that the whole process had only finished in last couple of weeks, and all the communications had been of a high standard, but the priority had been on explaining the process and reaffirming strategy, teams, and direction. Communications had also focussed on the new teams, presenting and clarifying to them. The Employer said that the ELT had not been a priority in terms of the long list of communications, but the two individuals were very aware of the changes.
19) When asked about the HR team the Employer said that this had completely changed. The only two employees were an internal recruiter and a people admin/office management role. The Employer said that these employees played no part in people management or strategy, and it was questionable why the Union was seeking to exclude such junior roles. The Employer said that with ELT now removed the Union’s proposal made no sense. The Employer said that a recruiter should have a voice in the bargaining unit like anyone else, and equally why should anyone in an admin/office management role be excluded. The Employer said that such roles had no direct reports or involvement in people strategy and should have a voice in the bargaining unit.
20) In summary the Employer maintained that the People & Culture Executive and Senior Talent Acquisition Manager should be included because they performed administrative and recruitment functions rather than strategic HR responsibilities. It also submitted that the Head of Infrastructure and Head of Commercial Analytics, who had previously been designated as ELT members, should now be included because the ELT no longer existed and neither role carried authority beyond its own functional area.
21) Regarding location, the Employer stated that all workers were employed by 15gifts Ltd at its Brighton workplace, notwithstanding its hybrid and remote working arrangements. It argued that remote working did not constitute a separate workplace and that all employees therefore fell within the scope of the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer’s proposed bargaining unit comprised 46 employees across Engineering, Quality, Data, Infrastructure, Product & UX, AI, Customer Success, Customer Onboarding, Marketing, Finance & Operations, and People & Culture functions. Seven individuals were excluded from the proposed unit, namely the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Customer Officer, VP Sales, VP Marketing, the Chairman and the Non-Executive Director.
22) The Employer also noted that, at the time of the CAC membership check, union membership stood at 53.13% of the proposed bargaining unit, representing 34 of 64 workers. However, it stated that a significant number of those employees had subsequently left the business through the redundancy process and that it did not have visibility of the current level of union membership within the revised workforce. The Employer submitted that the Panel might wish to consider the implications of those workforce changes when assessing membership and majority support.
23) In Conclusion, the Employer said that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was no longer appropriate because it referred to a management tier that had been dissolved, excluded People & Culture employees who no longer exercised strategic HR functions, and did not reflect the post-restructuring organisation. The Employer argued that its alternative proposal, comprising all permanent employees except the SLT, the future Head of People & Culture, and the Chairman and Non-Executive Director, was broader, clearly defined, avoided fragmentation, and was compatible with effective management. The Employer submitted that the Panel should assess bargaining unit appropriateness by reference to the business’s current post-restructuring workforce.
5. Considerations
24) 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. 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: 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 “In 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 and oral submissions. Both parties confirmed at the conclusion of the hearing that they had had the opportunity to say everything that they had wanted to say to the Panel.
25) In reaching its decision the Panel has taken account of the views of the Union and the Employer as expressed in their written submissions, responses to questions and oral submissions during the hearing.
26) 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. That does not require the Panel to determine whether it is the most appropriate bargaining unit; only whether it is appropriate. This is the overriding requirement under 19B (2) and relates principally to the matters to be collectively bargained for under the statutory regime namely pay, hours and holidays. The requirement is that the proposed bargaining unit would be compatible with effective management, not that it be compatible with the most effective management. Against the background of that overall responsibility the Panel has to consider the matters listed in paragraph 19B (3) of the Schedule reminding itself that these matters must not conflict with the need for the unit to be compatible with effective management.
27) The Panel finds, in all circumstances, that the bargaining unit proposed by the Union is compatible with effective management. The Panel’s reasons are as follows:
(1) The Employer provided no documentary evidence concerning the removal of the ELT level of management.
(2) A significant proportion of the Employer’s evidence focused on the reduction in ELT roles from seven positions to two.
(3) Whilst the Employer explained, and the Panel accepted, that certain functions were no longer being undertaken by the two “Head of” roles (including planning, key communications and the management of stand-alone projects), the Panel noted that the Employer had not yet established a wholly clear organisational structure for the future.
(4) The Panel was satisfied that, irrespective of whether the roles were formally described as ELT positions, the Head of Analytics and Head of Technical Operations (Head of Infrastructure) remained senior leadership roles within the Respondent’s organisation, albeit below SLT level. This distinguished those roles from the employees falling within the proposed bargaining unit.
(5) In relation to the HR employees, the Panel was satisfied that the exclusion of the HR roles, including the two more junior HR positions, was appropriate and compatible with effective management.
28) In reaching its decision, the Panel also considered the matters set out in paragraph 19(B)(2)(b) which have not been addressed above, as follows:
(1) There were no national or local bargaining arrangements in place.
(2) The Panel did not consider it likely that acceptance of the Union’s proposed bargaining unit would result in the creation of small or fragmented bargaining units within 15gifts Ltd.
6. Decision
29) The Panel’s decision is that the appropriate bargaining unit is that as proposed by the Union, namely, “All permanent employees, excluding contractors and those in senior leadership team (SLT, the extended leadership team (ELT), and People & Culture (HR)”. For the reasons set out above, the Panel is satisfied that the proposed bargaining unit is compatible with effective management.
Panel
Ms Laura Prince K.C., Panel Chair
Mr Derek Devereux
Mr Steve Gillan
16 July 2026
7. Appendix
Names of those who attended the hearing
For the Union
John Chadfield - National Officer, Technology
Lisa DeFontaine - Senior Tech Sector Co-ordinator
Tom Trott - Union Representative CWU
For the Employer
Tom Cox - Chief Executive Officer
Sergey Maltsev - Chief Financial Officer