Decision

Bargaining Unit Decision

Updated 22 September 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1474(2025)

5 September 2025

The Parties:

CWU

and

Sapphire Technologies Limited

1. Introduction

1)         CWU (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 9 June 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Sapphire Technologies Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising of “Managed Services Team working for Sapphire, at The Ink Building”, 24 Douglas St, Glasgow, G2 7NQ. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 9 June 2025.  The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 13 June 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 Andrew James, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Alistair Paton and Dr Steve Jary.  The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kaniza Bibi.

3)         By a decision dated 3 July 2025 the Panel accepted the Union’s application. Since the Employer then failed to comply with the duty imposed by paragraph 18A of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule) because it did not provide the specified information direct to the Union within the timeframe set by paragraph 18A(2) the Panel then proceeded under paragraph 19 of the Schedule to determine whether the proposed bargaining unit was appropriate by moving to a hearing.  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 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 28 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. The Panel would like to thank the parties for those submissions and answering the questions raised during the hearing. The information they provided was very helpful to the Panel.

4. Summary of the submissions made by the Union

6)         The Union stated it was seeking recognition for collective bargaining for a unit comprising all staff, excluding heads of service, employed by Sapphire Technologies Ltd and considered part of Managed Services at The Ink Building 24 Douglas Street, Glasgow, G2 7NQ. This excluded the role of Head of Managed Services.

7)         The Union supplied a table containing all the roles within the Sapphire Technologies Managed Services department, listed by team as follows:

Team	Roles
Security	Security Support Technician, Tier 1 Security Analyst, XDR Analyst, Tier 2 Security Analyst, Tier 3 Security Analyst, Threat Intelligence Specialist
Engineering	Engineering Support Technician, SOC Support Engineer, SOC Engineer, Cloud Engineer
Technical Account Managers	Technical Account Manager
Help Desk	Helpdesk Engineer, Security Consultant
Managers	Engineering Manager, Security Manager

8)         The Union submitted that this proposed unit was appropriate, suitable, fair, and fully compatible with effective management. The Union confirmed that the proposed bargaining unit aligned with effective management practices as it included all staff currently employed at the site below the level of head of service, containing all the roles that constituted the core workforce responsible for consistent operations in customer-facing, support and operations functions. The Union stated that collective bargaining with this clearly defined group was practical, feasible and consistent with current management practices. And that the sole difference between the proposal of the Union and that of the Employer was whether or not to include the Head of Managed Services.  By the time of the hearing, that was agreed.

9)         Finally, the Union said that no collective bargaining currently existed for Sapphire Technologies and its proposed bargaining unit did not conflict with existing arrangements. The Union also said that the proposed bargaining unit covered all permanent, non-head of service employees that comprise Managed Services, with approximately 28 employees providing robust collective representation for a coherent business unit. The Union explained that excluding the Head of Managed Services was reasonable, given the senior management responsibilities of the role, its potential conflict with the interests of the wider unit, and its close alignment with Sapphire’s senior leadership team

5. Summary of the submissions made by the Employer

10)       The Employer stated it would wish to allow colleagues an opportunity to represent themselves, via its employee forum and explained that the forum was of elected members and covered the entire workforce, with elected representatives for each area coming together to discuss matters affecting the entire workforce. The Employer said there were no existing national and local bargaining arrangements currently in place.

11)       It was the Employer’s view that the proposed bargaining group was incompatible with effective management and would result in small, fragmented bargaining groups. The Employer explained that the group in question was made up of several parts and its proposal was for the following individuals to be included in the bargaining group:

• The SOC Analysts (shift workers providing 24/7/365 cover)

• Security Operations (day shift workers)

• Security Engineering (day shift workers)

• This would reduce the proposed group by removing the Technical Account Managers, Threat Intelligence and Vulnerability Management individuals who all report elsewhere in the organisation.

• The SOC Analysts are the only individuals who are on a 24/7 contract. They were managed by a SOC Analyst Manager and these role worked closely with Security Engineering and Security Operations. All of these groups were based permanently from Glasgow SOC and were the core group of individuals.

12)       The Employer suggested that the individuals in the bargaining group be the SOC Analyst group, the Security Engineering group and the Security Operations group. This amounted to 22 people, and they were managed by 3 managers who each reported to the Head of Managed Services. The Employer agreed that the latter role should not be included. The Employer explained that other individuals should be excluded in its view, as they did not work closely together. Excluding the TAMs (3), VM cell (2) and TI (1) cell would reduce the group to 25 colleagues. The reason for excluding the TAMs and the other three roles was that the employer is planning to move them within a different management structure, sometime during 2026. The Employer highlighted that the following individuals work closely together, and many had come up through the ranks to their current roles:

• SOC Analysts + Manager (12+1)

• Security Operations + Manager (5+1)

• Security Engineering + Manager (5+1)

13)       The Employer stated that these individuals were a mix of day shift (10 hours per day) and 24/7 cover and that all were required in the office on all days of the week other than Fridays. They worked closely together and were the core of its SOC services and this reduced the group to just 22 colleagues and all of these colleagues were based in its Glasgow offices. The Employer said it would not include the Head of Managed Services in the bargaining group as he was a manager of people and had decision making responsibility. The Employer said these individuals were shift workers, covering a 24/7/365 working arrangement and Day Shift, covering a 10-hour working day, Monday to Friday (with associated breaks) and the location of workers was The Ink Building, 24 Douglas Street, Glasgow.

14)       Finally, the Employer said it was of the view that employees should be given the opportunity to decide whether they wished to be represented by the Union and that membership of a Union did not automatically mean that there was a wish for the Union to negotiate on the individual’s behalf. The Employer stated this decision should be given to individuals and it believed that people joined trade unions for a variety of reasons and that it should not be automatically assumed that they wished to be part of a collective bargaining agreement where the Union represented them. As such the Employer would like to give those in the proposed group the opportunity to have their say.

6. Considerations

15)       At the outset of the hearing the Panel clarified the issues with the parties. The Union confirmed its submission would be that the bargaining unit set out in its application was appropriate.  The Employer confirmed its submissions were that the bargaining unit set out by the Union was not appropriate and some further roles should be excluded.  The Panel reminded the parties of the legal test it would apply in deciding the appropriateness of the bargaining unit and the parties were invited to make their submissions. 

16)       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.

17)       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.

18)       The Panel finds in the circumstances that the bargaining unit proposed by the Union is compatible with effective management. The Panel’s reasons are as follows:

(a) the roles in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit are all situated in one location, namely,  Ink Building, 24 Douglas St, Glasgow, G2 7NQ

(b) all of the workers in the roles in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit are subject to the same contracts of employment (although the exact terms do of course differ). The Panel is aware of examples both in the private and public sector and in differing sizes or organisations where different types of workers are included in the same bargaining unit, which is not incompatible with effective management.

(c) The Employer’s plans for the five workers it sought to exclude are currently just that – plans. They have not yet been shared or discussed with the Union. Those workers are currently integrated with the other teams in the Ink Building. They rely on and work with each other to provide a coherent service. In those circumstances, the Panel did not consider it appropriate to exclude those five workers.

19)       As part of those deliberations the Panel considered those matters at paragraph19(B)(2)(b) not dealt with above as follows:

(a)        The views of the employer and union were fully considered.

(b)       There are no current national or local bargaining arrangements.

(c)        The Union’s proposal was a bargaining unit at one location based at Ink Building, 24 Douglas St, Glasgow, G2 7NQ. The Union’s proposal avoided small, fragmented bargaining units.

7. Decision

20)       The Panel’s decision is that the appropriate bargaining unit is that proposed by the Union, namely: “All staff, excluding Heads of service, employed by Sapphire Technologies Ltd and considered part of Managed Services at The Ink Building 24 Douglas Street, Glasgow, G2 7NQ. Comprising of Azure Cloud Engineer, Engineering Support Technician, Security Engineering Manager, Security Support Technician, Senior Security Analyst, SOC Cloud Engineer, SOC Engineer, SOC Support Engineer, Technical Account Manager, Threat Intelligence Analyst, Tier 1 Security Analyst, Tier 2 Security Analyst, Tier 3 Security Analyst, Vulnerability Management Specialist and XDR Analyst”. The proposed bargaining unit is the same as the one in the Union’s application, albeit presented with the roles listed individually to provide greater clarity.

Panel

Mr Andrew James, Panel Chair

Mr Alistair Paton

Dr Steve Jary

5 September 2025

8. Appendix

Names of those who attended the hearing

For the Union

John Chadfield            -          National Officer for Tech Workers

Ellie Judge                     -        Tech Sector Co-ordinator, CWU

William Robertson     -           UTAW member/representative

Deji Olayinka                -        UTAW National Chair

For the Employer

Claudia Quinton         -           Chief People Officer

Ian Thomas                   -         CEO