Decision

Bargaining Unit Decision

Updated 26 August 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1566(2026)

25 August 2026

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DETERMINATION OF THE BARGAINING UNIT

The Parties:

GMB

and

Astley Signs

1. Introduction

1)         GMB (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 1 May 2026 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Astley Signs (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising the “Production operators, Assembly workers, Metal workers, Welders, Vinylist, Fixers, Painters, CNC operators, Printers, Drivers, Dispatchers & Labourers.”. The location of the bargaining unit was given as “Astley Signs, Redforrest House, Queen Court North, Earlsway Team Valley, NE11 0BP.” The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 1 May 2026. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 8 May 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 Naeema Choudry, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Joe Corcos and Mr Christopher Burrows. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Lauren Hyatt.

3)         By a decision dated 25 June 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.

4)           The Panel is required, by paragraph 19(2) of Schedule A1 to the Act (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: (1) the views of the employer and the union; (2) existing national and local bargaining arrangements; (3) the desirability of avoiding small fragmented bargaining units within an undertaking; (4) 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 (5) 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.

2. Summary of the Union’s submissions

5)         The Union confirmed the roles included in the proposed bargaining unit in its application dated 1 May 2026 but clarified that where ‘Fixer’ was identified as a role, this was intended to read as ‘Fitter’ as both meant the same role.

6)         It stated that the issue of whether the role of ‘Fitter’ should be included in the bargaining unit had not been agreed between itself and the Employer. It stated that the Employer’s position was that ‘Fitters’ should not be included in the Bargaining Unit because they have managerial responsibilities. The Union’s position was that the ‘Fitters’ did not at present have managerial responsibilities, (although this may change in the future) and so it was appropriate to include them in the bargaining unit.

7)         When questioned during the hearing whether all other roles in the proposed bargaining unit referred to in its application dated 1 May 2026 were agreed the Union confirmed that that they were.

8)         The Union said that there were two sub-categories of the ‘Fitter’ role - a ‘Fitters Mate’ and a ‘Lead Fitter’. The Union confirmed that the role of ‘Fitter’s Mate’ had also been agreed between the Parties to be included in the bargaining unit, however the role of ‘Lead Fitter’ was still in dispute. It stated this was because the Employer contended that the Lead Fitter role had managerial responsibility, which the Union disagreed with.

9)         The Union concluded by stating that it had asked those working as ‘Lead Fitters’ whether they wished to be included within the bargaining unit and that these workers had confirmed that they did.

3. Summary of the Employer’s submissions

10)       The Employer submitted that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was not suitable because of the inclusion of the Lead Fitter role. It submitted that they should be excluded as this role had managerial responsibilities and that it has been agreed with the Union that ‘Team Leaders’ in other areas of the business (e.g. manufacturing) with a similar level of responsibility would be excluded from the bargaining unit.

11)       As part of its submissions, the Employer provided a job description for both the Lead Fitter and Fitter’s Mate roles.

12)       The Employer confirmed the position that it agreed on all roles put forward in the proposed bargaining unit, with the exception of the ‘Lead Fitter’ role.

13)       The Employer said that it believed that a bargaining unit composing of those with managerial roles and those without would not be compatible with effective management, as this may involve those with line management responsibilities being directly involved in the pay negotiations of their direct reports, and vice versa.

14)       The Employer went on to say that the role of Lead Fitter was supervisory in nature and that those workers instructed, oversaw and directed those undertaking the role of Fitter’s Mate. The Employer stated that it may not have direct contact with the Lead Fitter for four to five days at a time, and that the Lead Fitter also held other responsibilities such as ensuring site actives ran as planned, liaising with client’s and responding to issues raised by members of the public. It also confirmed that the Lead Fitter role attracted a higher level of pay than other roles that had been agreed by the parties to be in the bargaining unit.

15)       When questioned at the hearing, the Employer confirmed that those working as Lead Fitters were not involved in pay negotiations. It also confirmed that in regard to disciplinary matters the Lead Fitter would supervise, train and support the Fitter’s Mate, but would escalate any issues that would lead to a formal process e.g. a disciplinary process and they did not deal with disciplinary matters themselves. It confirmed that the Lead Fitter may be called on as a witness to give evidence in a formal investigation as required.

16)       The Employer also confirmed when questioned that the role of ‘Fitter’ is advertised generally, so the role of ‘Lead Fitter’ is not recruited for using a separate advertisement.

4. Considerations

17)       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.

18)      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.

19)       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.

20)       It is relatively common to have different levels of seniority within the same bargaining unit. There is no reason, as a matter of principle, to exclude those in managerial positions from a bargaining unit which includes roles reporting to them. The central issue is compatibility with effective management.

21)       The Panel are not satisfied on the information before them that the Lead Fitter role is a purely supervisory role, or a role that is entirely distinct from that of Fitter’s Mate.

22)       The job descriptions confirm that there is cross over between the duties of the Lead Fitter and Fitter’s Mate, with both carrying out similar work as a fitter.

23)       When questioned the Employer stated that the role of Lead Fitter was not advertised for specifically. It clarified that the role of ‘Fitter’ was advertised in line with industry standard terminology and that ‘Fitters’ may later become Lead Fitters.

24)       Although the Lead Fitter has some supervisory responsibilities, it is common for more experienced staff to undertake supervision of a more junior colleague. It is noted that the Lead Fitter is not involved in leading investigations or formal disciplinary processes or nor are they involved in high level pay negotiations. Both the Fitter’s Mate and Lead Fitter report to the ‘installation manager’ suggesting that the Lead Fitter does not hold a distinct position within the direct managerial chain.

25)       For the reasons above the Panel considers that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit is compatible with effective management.

5. Decision

26)       The appropriate bargaining unit is the Union’s proposed bargaining unit, namely “the “Production operators, Assembly workers, Metal workers, Welders, Vinylist, Fixers ^{[footnote 1]}, Painters, CNC operators, Printers, Drivers, Dispatchers & Labourers.”.  The location of the bargaining unit was given as “Astley Signs, Redforrest House, Queen Court North, Earlsway Team Valley, NE11 0BP.”

Panel

Ms Naeema Choudry, Panel Chair

Mr Joe Corcos

Mr Christopher Burrows

25 August 2026

---

1. As confirmed by the Union in Paragraph 5, ‘Fixer’ has the same meaning as ‘Fitter’. ↩