Decision

Bargaining Unit Decision

Updated 15 August 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1468(2025)

15 August 2025

The Parties:

CWU

and

Apple Retail UK Ltd

1. Introduction

1)         CWU (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 15 May 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Apple Retail UK Ltd (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “All permanent staff, excluding Managers -This is taken to mean all permanent staff below manager grades. This includes all permanent staff from the “Specialist” position up to and including “Lead” and “Lead Genius”, but does not include Manager, Senior Manager, Store Leader, Market Leader. As FWE (Flexible working employees) staff are employed on a temporary basis they are not included. Acting or Interim managers are considered to be Managers and are not included.” based at Apple Grand Arcade, Grand Arcade Shopping Centre, Cambridge, CB2 3AX. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 15 May 2025.  The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 21 May 2025 which was copied to the Union.

2)         In accordance with section 263 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (the Act), the CAC Chair established a Panel to deal with the case.  The Panel consisted of Mr Jonathan Gray, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Robert Light and Ms Claire Sullivan.  The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kaniza Bibi.

3)         By a decision dated 6 June 2025 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. Issues

4)         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: the views of the employer and the union; existing national and local bargaining arrangements; the desirability of avoiding small, fragmented bargaining units within an undertaking; the characteristics of workers falling within the bargaining unit under consideration and of any other employees of the employer whom the CAC considers relevant; and the location of workers. Paragraph 19B(4) states that in taking an employer’s views into account for the purpose of deciding whether the proposed bargaining unit is appropriate, the CAC must take into account any view the employer has about any other bargaining unit that it considers would be appropriate. The Panel must also have regard to paragraph 171 of the Schedule which provides that “[i]n exercising functions under this Schedule in any particular case the CAC must have regard to the object of encouraging and promoting fair and efficient practices and arrangements in the workplace, so far as having regard to that object is consistent with applying other provisions of this Schedule in the case concerned.”

3. Hearing

5)         A virtual hearing was held on 8 August 2025 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.

4. Matters clarified at the beginning of the hearing

Clarification of the Union’s Proposed Bargaining Unit

6)         At the beginning of the hearing the Panel asked for clarification as to the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The Union’s application specified the proposed bargaining unit as “All permanent staff, excluding Managers - This is taken to mean all permanent staff below manager grades. This includes all permanent staff from the “Specialist” position up to and including “Lead” and “Lead Genius”, but does not include Manager, Senior Manager, Store Leader, Market Leader. As FWE (Flexible working employees) staff are employed on a temporary basis they are not included. Acting or Interim managers are considered to be Managers and are not included.” based at Apple Grand Arcade, Grand Arcade Shopping Centre, Cambridge, CB2 3AX. The Union clarified that this definition was intended to encompass all permanent employees below managerial grades. This included positions ranging from “Specialist” through to “Lead” and “Lead Genius,” but explicitly excluded Manager, Senior Manager, Store Leader, and Market Leader roles. Additionally, the Union explained that Flexible Working Employees (FWE), who are employed on a temporary basis, were not included in the proposed unit and also Acting or Interim Managers were also regarded as Managers and therefore excluded from the bargaining unit.

7)         The Panel asked the Union to explain the rationale for excluding Acting or Interim Managers from the bargaining unit. The Union stated that at the time of the application there had been an interim manager in place, however they were no longer in the interim role, so it no longer considered that exclusion was necessary. The Union confirmed that they were happy to tidy this up.

8)        As to the exclusion of FWE, the Union stated that, at the time it submitted its application to the CAC, there were no Flexible Temporary Workers employed at the Apple Store in Cambridge. As such, these workers were excluded from the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The Union further expressed concern that the subsequent inclusion of Flexible Temporary Workers in the proposed bargaining unit could represent an attempt to artificially inflate the size of the bargaining unit. The Union argued that this inflation could have the effect of diluting the strength and cohesion of the proposed unit by increasing the proportion of employees. According to the Union, such a dilution would undermine the viability and representativeness of the bargaining unit, potentially making it more difficult to secure majority support and weakening the effectiveness of any future collective bargaining efforts.

9)         During the hearing, the Employer gave a clear and unequivocal assurance that it had not, and would not in the future, take any deliberate steps to dilute the composition of the workforce in a manner that could affect the integrity of the bargaining unit. Specifically, the Employer confirmed that it had not engaged in the recruitment of additional staff, including temporary or flexible workers, for the purpose of altering the demographic or numerical balance of the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer further assured the Panel that it recognised the importance of maintaining a stable and representative workforce during the recognition process and committed to refraining from any actions that could be perceived as undermining or manipulating the bargaining unit for strategic advantage.

10) The Panel asked the Employer to explain its assertion that flexibility would be greatly impeded by collective bargaining the hours and holiday for only permanent workers (paragraph 21 of its written submissions). How would it be greatly impeded? It was explained that the FWEs if mapped against national terms and conditions, instead of the terms and conditions of the proposed bargaining unit in Cambridge, could diverge, with the local permanent workers having a different hourly working week compared to the local FWEs, this would cause work scheduling issues.

5. Summary of the submissions made by the Union

11)       The Union said that this proposed unit was appropriate, suitable, fair, and fully compatible with effective management. The Union shared a table which contained all of the job-roles within the Apple Grand Arcade store, listed by grade and department. The Union explained that Grade 1 was unused, and its proposed bargaining unit comprised of all permanent staff from grades 2-5.

12)       The Union explained that the proposed bargaining unit was aligned with effective management practices, as it included all staff currently employed at the store below manager grades, containing all roles that constituted the core workforce responsible for consistent retail operations in both customer facing, sales, support, and operations functions. The Union stated that collective bargaining with this clearly defined group was practical, feasible, and consistent with current management practices. The Union said that the sole difference between its proposal and that of the Employer was whether or not to include Flexible Working Employees (FWE).

13)       The Union clarified that as of the date of its application to the CAC on 15 May 2025, and the date of the extended acceptance period which allowed for a membership check to be carried out, 12 June 2025, the Employer had no FWEs at Apple Grand Arcade, though since the process had begun, the Employer had started to hire new staff into both permanent and FWE positions. The Union explained that there were several key differences between FWE and permanent staff and that FWE staff were typically employed on temporary contracts in the “Specialist” role during peak sales periods, usually starting just prior to the launch of new iPhone products in September, before Black Friday and the holidays.

14)       The Union stated that the FWE staff were generally hired for short-term periods of 3-6 months and fulfilled all of the same duties as permanent Specialists, including sales, demonstration and setup of Apple devices and accessories. The Union said that they received all of the same company benefits and were usually paid the same as permanent Specialists. Some number of FWEs may be kept on in permanent roles after the holidays to fill vacant positions, but they were usually re-interviewed for those positions and FWE contracts typically ended in January.

15)       The Union explained that the Employer conducted annual reviews in July and then staff generally received pay increases in October. The Union stated that as FWE staff were generally hired after the annual review process they did not participate in the pay review cycle and were, therefore, ineligible for pay increases during their temporary contract.

16)       The Union confirmed that all new staff served a 3-month (or 12-week) probation period, and this meant FWE staff may spend the majority, if not all, of their time employed at Apple on probation. The Union said that, although the Employer extended the same disciplinary policy and procedure to all staff, those who were in their probation period could be dismissed during probation review meetings and that during that period, they might not benefit from the right of accompaniment to disciplinary meetings that other staff did.

17)       The Union stated that staff were eligible to apply for internal jobs providing they had no live disciplinary sanctions and had at least six months’ continuous service in their current role, but the FWE staff were ineligible for other internal roles. The Union explained that the Employer carried out an internal staff satisfaction survey called the “Pulse Survey” twice a year. Based on these surveys, store managers-built action plans to implement improvements to the workplace and FWE staff were ineligible to participate in the survey.

18)       The Union explained that the Employer’s onboarding programme for retail staff, known as “Core”, included both temporary and permanent staff, mostly going into Specialist roles and that Core lasted two weeks and involved classroom sessions, in-store training, and shadowing. The Union also explained that when the group consisted only of FWEs, the duration was sometimes reduced.

19)       During talks with the Employer, the Union proposed allowing FWEs to join the bargaining unit after eight weeks of continuous employment, but the Employer declined the proposal. The Union said that the eight-week period was intended to protect the stability of the bargaining unit and prevent the company from inflating its size during ballot periods. The Union said that it this also aligned with its support eligibility and covered the probation period and during this time, staff were ineligible for pay increases, Pulse Survey participation, and union accompaniment at probation reviews. The Union confirmed that FWEs were eligible to join the Union from their first day.

20)       The Union stated that no collective bargaining currently existed at the Cambridge store or nationally for Apple Retail employees in England. The Union said that Apple recognised a union at its Apple Glasgow store, but this agreement was on a voluntary basis and its proposed bargaining unit did not conflict with existing arrangements.

21)       The Union stated that the proposed bargaining unit covered all permanent, non-managerial employees at the Cambridge store, and that approximately 70–80 employees, provided robust collective representation. The Union said that excluding FWEs was sensible and avoided artificial workforce fragmentation by distinguishing the core, ongoing employees from transient hires.

22)       Finally, the Union stated that the proposed unit specifically addressed the Cambridge (Grand Arcade) store, which was a clearly defined operational entity. It said that collective bargaining for this single site was straightforward and compatible with Apple’s store-level management approach and Apple operated only one retail store in Cambridge.

6. Summary of the submissions made by the Employer

23)       The Employer stated that the Union submitted an application to the CAC on 15 May 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining in respect of a proposed bargaining unit comprising the following categories of workers employed at its store at Apple Grand Arcade, Cambridge, CB2 3AX (the ‘Store’): “All permanent staff excluding Managers. This is taken to mean all permanent staff below manager grades. This includes all permanent staff from the “Specialist” position up to and including “Lead” and “Lead Genius”, but does not include Manager, Senior Manager, Store Leader, Market Leader. As FWE (Flexible workforce employees) staff are employed on a temporary basis they are not included. Acting or Interim managers are considered to be Managers and are not included.”

24)       The Employer said it did not agree with the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The particular issues in dispute were whether it was appropriate to exclude FWEs from the proposed bargaining unit, the vast majority of whom were employed initially to cover seasonal demand and then go on to become permanent employees. The Employer also said it would be helpful to clarify the distinction drawn by the Union in its proposed bargaining unit with “Permanent staff” simply being those employed on contracts of indefinite duration and there was nothing “permanent” per se about a contract of indefinite duration. “Temporary staff” were those employed on contracts of a finite duration, with a fixed date on which (without extension or variation) the contract would come to an end.

25)       The Employer stated that the Union’s exclusion of part of the non-managerial workforce sought to cleave those employed on contracts of indefinite duration from those employed on fixed-term contracts, regardless of any other factor (including length of service, integration within the workforce, role within the workforce etc) in a manner which was both unjustified, unjustifiable, and was incompatible with effective management. The Employer further stated that there was no principled reason to exclude those employed on fixed-term contracts from the bargaining unit, and good reason to include this important part of the Employer’s workforce within the bargaining unit and to ensure it was given the same access to collective bargaining, if that was what the workforce determined in the course of the statutory recognition process.

26)       The Employer confirmed that it was helpful to identify the relevant workforce at the Store, and to give the CAC some insight into the relevant populations across “permanent” and “temporary” employee cohorts below managerial level. Additionally, the Employer submitted that the Union’s exclusion of Leads who temporarily ‘act up’ as Managers was incompatible with effective management and would be unworkable in practice.

Date	Total Permanent Employees	Total FWEs	FWEs converted to permanent after the end of their fixed term
29 July 2025	75	13	N/A
31 July 2024	69	19	16 (+1 declined)
31 July 2023	78	8	5 (+1 declined)
31 July 2022	78	0	N/A

27)       The Employer recognised that the statutory test under paragraph 19 of the Schedule was set at the comparatively modest level of appropriateness, rather than of the optimum or best possible outcome”: On the application of Kwik-Fit (GB) Ltd v Central Arbitration Committee [2002] ICR 1212, CA at [7]. The Employer submitted that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit would give rise to substantial practical difficulties in operating its business at the Store, such that it would fail to satisfy even this “comparatively modest” test.

28)       The Employer stated that affording potential access to statutory recognition under the Schedule only to those employed on “permanent” contracts would afford differential access to important Article 11 rights for only a subset of employees, and that the same was likely to be discriminatory for the purposes of Article 14.

29)       The Employer further suggested that such a dichotomy within the Store’s non-managerial workforce required clear justification, and no such justification had been identified or was apparent in the instant application. And that no reason at all had been advanced for the omission of “temporary” employees from the proposed bargaining unit.

30)       The Employer stated that its submissions first addressed the requirement not to discriminate against “temporary” employees unless the CAC was satisfied that the same was justified; and second, addressed the appropriateness of the proposed bargaining unit with reference to the considerations set out at Paragraph 19B of the Schedule. The Employer confirmed that Fixed-term workers had the right not be treated less favourably than comparable permanent employee, subject to objective justification. And this right was now established by the Fixed-Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002, SI 2002/2034 (the ‘FTE Regulations’). 

31)       The Employer stated that its practice had been to employ “temporary” staff on the same terms and conditions (such as working hours and holiday entitlements) as “permanent” staff, but the Union’s proposed bargaining unit gave rise to two potential consequences from reg. 3 of the FTE Regulations 2002.  First, given the Employer’s existing practice, the Union’s proposed bargaining unit would lead to “temporary” staff being subject to terms agreed in collective bargaining whilst being deprived of the opportunity to participate in or influence those negotiations. Second, however, one of the potential implications of a bargaining unit excluding “temporary” employees was that future differences in treatment between “permanent” and “temporary” staff may in future not be “on the ground that the employee was a fixed-term employee”.

32)       The Employer invited the CAC to consider the risk of deciding on a bargaining unit which excluded parties on grounds protected by Article 14 either on the grounds that being employed on a fixed-term contract was itself an acquired “other status” or because such a measure would discriminate indirectly against non-white, female and younger employees in affording them lesser access to collective bargaining and to the important machinery for statutory recognition under the Schedule. And that such opportunity was protected by Article 11 and could not be applied in a discriminatory manner without objective justification. Justification was assessed by reference to the measure being a “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”. 

33)       The Employer stated that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was not compatible with effective management, on the basis of the unjustified exclusion from the proposed bargaining unit of (i) fixed-term employees and (ii) Leads temporarily ‘acting up’ as Managers, each employed at the Store. The Employer re-iterated that it was critical for effective management of the Store, that all staff employed below the level of Manager were able to work seamlessly together as one integrated team. Therefore, the Union’s proposal for only some members of a close-working team to have their hours and holiday determined by collective bargaining would be incompatible with the effective management.

34)       The Employer argued that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit would give rise to significant practical challenges for the Employer in seeking to manage its schedules and shift patterns. As a retail business, the Employer explained it was frequently required to adjust staffing levels in response to seasonal and other fluctuations in demand – this flexibility would be greatly impeded by collectively bargaining in respect of the hours and holiday for only permanent employees.

35)       The Employer confirmed that these common terms and conditions reflected the essential need for all staff at the Store to work as one integrated team and it was well-established that it was not compatible with effective management for only some members of a single team employed on common terms and conditions to be included in the bargaining unit. The Employer referred to previous CAC decisions in Unite and Sports Direct International Plc (TUR1/619/08), United Road Transport Union and UTL Consumer Solutions (TUR1/939/2015) and Unite and the College of Law (TUR1/563/07). In particular, the Employer noted that the CAC decided that it would not be appropriate to exclude fixed-term employees engaged on common terms and conditions from the bargaining unit in UNISON and Cornerstone Community Care (TUR1/1092/2019). The Employer said the CAC had “some difficulty in understanding the rationale for the exclusion of Fixed Term Workers…”  and identified there being “sufficient commonality and shared interest among both permanent staff and Fixed Term Workers that it is appropriate for all workers on fixed term contracts to be part of the bargaining unit”. The Employer said the CAC decided that “staff who share the same characteristics and share the same interests have been excluded and the Panel believes that requires a re-shaping of the Union’s proposed bargaining unit”.

36)      The Employer accepted that the CAC was not bound by its own decisions but submitted that the Panel should be reluctant to depart from these decisions given that the CAC stated in paragraph 37 of IWGB and CIS Security Ltd TUR1/1091/2019 that: “While CAC decisions are not binding on other panels they do set out the thinking of panels chosen for their industrial knowledge and experience. While many CAC decisions turn on their own facts some involve determinations of general principle. Where CAC panels have consistently determined a point of principle in one way that is of significance, particularly because it involves the consideration of the issue by a number of panels all selected for their industrial knowledge including panel members who have many years of experience in the workplace”.

37)       The Employer said that the Union’s application identified no rationale for excluding “temporary” employees from the proposed bargaining unit and that it would respond to any supposed rationale, if identified. The Employer confirmed that the FTE Regulations would either require “temporary” employees’ terms and conditions to be determined by collective bargaining to which they have had no input or may in future lead to a divergence of their terms and conditions from those applicable to “permanent” employees. The Employer said there was no good rationale or justification for doing so and ultimately this could lead to an unfavourable and unfair result for “temporary” employees and it may also restrict the Employer from using permanent and fixed-term staff interchangeably as part of a single team, reducing its ability to adjust to operational changes and fluctuations in demand.

38)       The Employer explained that permanent and fixed-term employees at the Store reported into the same managers, were supported by the same members of the Employer’s People team and must adhere to the same HR processes, for example where they wished to change their working hours, request holiday or take sick leave. The Employer said that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit had the potential to cut across the Employer’s management structures and would result in a duplication of communication and decision-making which would be incompatible with effective management.

39)       In addition, the Employer said that many permanent employees at the Store were first hired by the Employer on fixed-term contracts and that it relied on its fixed-term employees as a key source of candidates for permanent roles in the store. Therefore, the Union’s proposed bargaining unit had the potential to result in different terms and conditions for permanent and fixed-term employees in the same role and this would also be incompatible with effective management. The Employer stated this would adversely affect the Employer’s ability to retain fixed-term employees on a permanent basis, prejudicing its existing recruitment practices.

40)       The Employer stated that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit would risk undermining the Employer’s ‘one store’ ethos and that collective bargaining in relation to pay, hours and holiday for only some of the employees below Manager level at the Store would risk fostering an unnecessarily divisive and partisan atmosphere within a team which currently works closely together. The Employer said both categories of excluded employees would either be fixed with terms to which they had no input, or subject to divergent terms and conditions and either approach would be detrimental to the ‘one store’ ethos.

41)       The Employer further noted that the CAC must have regard to paragraph 171 of the Schedule, which provided that in exercising its functions, it “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 Employer submitted that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit would likely adversely impact the fixed-term employees and Leads temporarily ‘acting up’ who would be excluded from the scope of collective bargaining in a matter which would be contrary to fair and efficient practices and arrangements in the workplace and collective bargaining over the pay, hours and holiday for permanent employees only could adversely impact fixed-term staff. Further, insofar the Union’s proposed bargaining unit would result in different terms and conditions for permanent and fixed-term employees in the same role, it risked making it more difficult for the Employer to retain fixed-term staff on a permanent basis.

42)       The Employer mentioned that currently it operated one existing local bargaining unit, and it recognised the GMB union for collective bargaining purposes in respect of all employees below Manager level at its Glasgow store, including both fixed-term employees and Leads who temporarily ‘act up’ as managers. The Union’s proposed bargaining unit would therefore be inconsistent with the Employer’s existing local bargaining arrangements. The Employer confirmed in the hearing that its Glasgow store voluntary agreement did include pay negotiations with the Union.

43)       The Employer noted that in December 2022 and September 2023 the Union requested voluntary recognition for collective bargaining purposes in respect of “all grades excluding managers” at the Employer’s stores in White City, London and Southampton respectively. It was submitted that in both its previous recognition requests the Union accepted that including all staff below managerial level (including those temporarily performing certain managerial responsibilities) in its proposed bargaining units would be compatible with effective management. The Employer stated that in both instances, following membership checks conducted by Acas, the Union ceased to pursue its requests for recognition.

44)       The Employer submitted that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was likely to result in small, fragmented bargaining units and that the proposed bargaining unit did not cover all employees below managerial level and itself fragmented staff into two cohorts. This dichotomy imposed between “permanent” and “temporary” employee cohorts may itself risk a subsequent application for recognition in respect of the fixed-term employees at the Store, under separate bargaining arrangements.

45)       Finally, the Employer confirmed that the appropriate bargaining unit should be, “All staff excluding Managers and above, employed by Apple Retail UK Ltd at the Grand Arcade Apple store”.

7. Considerations

46)       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. Both parties confirmed at the conclusion of the hearing that the hearing had been conducted fairly and that they had the opportunity to say everything that they had wanted to say to the Panel.

47)       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.

48)       The Panel considers that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit is not compatible with effective management. The Panel has had some difficulty in understanding the rationale for the exclusion of Flexible Working Employees from the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The Panel believes that there is sufficient commonality and shared interest amongst both Permanent staff Grades 1 to 5 and Flexible Working Employees, and that it is appropriate for FWE’s workers on fixed term contracts to be part of the bargaining unit. It would also leave a small group of workers outside the bargaining unit leading to the potential for a small, fragmented unit. Such a situation would not be compatible with effective management. The exclusion of Acting or Interim Managers was also not compatible with effective management. It was clarified to the Panel that those acting up or in interim management roles remain on their usual contracts, save for an acting up payment. There was no rationale asserted for their continued exclusion from the Union’s proposed bargaining unit.

49)       Having decided that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was not appropriate, the Panel’s next responsibility was to determine a bargaining unit that was appropriate. The Panel concluded that the bargaining unit proposed by the Employer constituted an appropriate unit. However, the Panel modified the wording of the Employer’s proposed unit to provide greater clarity and precision. While the Employer proposed the bargaining unit as: “All staff excluding Managers and above, employed by Apple Retail UK Ltd at the Grand Arcade Apple store,” the Panel refined this to: “All Grades 1 to 5, (including permanent and flexible workers) excluding Managers, based at Apple Grand Arcade, Grand Arcade Shopping Centre, Cambridge, CB2 3AX.” The Panel considers that this bargaining unit is compatible with effective management.

50)       The Panel has considered the matters listed in paragraph 19B(3) of the Schedule so far as they do not conflict with the need for the unit to be compatible with effective management. The views of the Employer and the Union, as described earlier in this decision, have been fully considered. The Panel does not consider that there are any existing local or national bargaining arrangements that impact its decision in respect of the Cambridge store. As far as the desirability of avoiding small, fragmented bargaining units within the undertaking is concerned, the Panel’s determination will ensure that that there are no residual workers that could give rise to small bargaining units in the Cambridge undertaking. The determined bargaining unit is a clearly defined unit with an obvious boundary. All staff within the bargaining unit are involved in selling the Employer’s products directly to the public and they all work at one location at the Apple Store in Cambridge. The Panel is satisfied that its decision is consistent with the object set out in paragraph 171 of the Schedule.

8. Decision

51)       The Panel’s decision is that the appropriate bargaining unit is: All grades 1 to 5, (including permanent and flexible workers) excluding managers, based at Apple Grand Arcade, Grand Arcade Shopping Centre, Cambridge, CB2 3AX.

52)       As the determined bargaining unit differs from the proposed bargaining unit, the Panel will proceed under paragraph 20(2) of the Schedule to decide if the application is invalid within the terms of paragraphs 43 to 50 of the Schedule.

Panel

Mr Jonathan Gray, Panel Chair

Mr Robert Light

Ms Claire Sullivan

15 August 2025

9. Appendix

Names of those who attended the hearing

For the Union

John Chadfield                     -             National Officer

Eran Cohen                            -             Organiser

For the Employer

Andrew Mitchell                  -             Employee and Labour Relations Leader UK & Sweden

Ollie Knox                               -             Market Leader, South East

Hayley Kilgallen                  -             Market Leader, East Anglia

Els Janssens                          -             Managing Counsel, EMEIA Employment Law

Jesse Crozier                        -             Counsel, Devereux Chambers

William Brown                      -             Associate, Lewis Silkin LLP