Decision

Bargaining Unit Decision

Updated 18 November 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1489(2025)

18 November 2025

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

Bield Housing and Care

1. Introduction

1)         GMB (the Union) submitted an application to the Central Arbitration Committee (the CAC) dated 21 August 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Bield Housing and Care (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “All workers based at Bield Housing & Care, Thornhill Court, Falkirk FK2 9HH.”

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 Mrs Laura Prince K.C., Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Mark Pennifold and Mr Matt Smith. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Bola Olayinka.

3)         By a decision dated 25 September 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 Panel held a virtual hearing to decide that issue on 6 November 2025. The names of those who attended the hearing are appended to this decision. The parties provided written submissions and supporting documentation prior to the hearing, and Mr K Greenaway, GMB Scotland Senior Organiser, and Ms K Faulds, Head of HR and Ms N Ritchie, Director of People and Digital represented the Union and the Employer respectively at the hearing. They provided oral submissions and answered questions raised by the Panel during the hearing, for which the Panel is grateful.

2. The issue to be decided by the Panel

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. Paragraphs 19B(1) and (2) state that, in making those decisions, the Panel must take into account

(a)    the need for the unit to be compatible with effective management; and

(b)   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:

(a)   the views of the employer and the union;

(b)   existing national and local bargaining arrangements;

(c) the desirability of avoiding small fragmented bargaining units within an undertaking;

(d)   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

(e)   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.

5)         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.”

6)         The Panel has set out the parties’ views relating to the provisions described in paragraphs 4 and 5 above when summarising their submissions below.

3. Relevant facts

7)         The relevant facts have not been materially in dispute. The Employer, Bield Housing and Care, is a not-for-profit organisation and registered Scottish Charity that provides housing and support services for older people across 21 local authority areas in Scotland. It employs 698 staff and 160 casual workers, with around 500 working in core housing and support services.

8)         Its main service models include Retirement Housing, which operates across 87 developments and provides tenancy and property management services from Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm. Each development has a Manager and Assistant, and the service employs 191 people. Retirement Housing with Meals operates across 21 developments in 12 local authority areas and provides housing with an additional daily meal service. These services run seven days a week from 9am to 6:30pm and have a staffing structure that includes a Manager, Deputy Manager, Cook, and Assistant. Thornhill Court is one of the developments in this group, which employs 123 people. The third model, Retirement Housing Plus, covers nine developments in three local authority areas and combines the Retirement Housing with Meals service with additional care or support packages based on individual assessed needs.

9)         There are eight workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit, which comprises of one Manager, one Deputy Manager, two Cooks, three Assistants, and one Casual Worker. All bar the casual worker are salaried employees.

10)       As set out above, the Employer operates three core housing service models that define the services offered to customers and the associated rent and service charges. These charges, which cover staffing, property, office, and management costs, are set across the three models rather than for individual developments. Income from rent and services funds the Employer’s overall operations, including staff pay, working arrangements, and employment terms.

11)       All services follow the same organisational policies to maintain consistency and quality across locations. Housing Services are managed by geographical areas, each overseen by an Area Housing Manager (AHM) responsible for several developments within their region. Property services follow the same regional structure. There are 15 geographical areas in total, with each AHM managing one or more housing models within their area.

4. Submissions for the Union

12)       The Union explained it had chosen Thornhill Court as its proposed bargaining unit because a majority of workers at that site wanted to partake in collective bargaining.

13)       The Union believed Thornhill Court was a distinct standalone workplace where all employees wanted collective bargaining rights. It argued that workplace-based recognition was common in the care sector and that there was no valid reason to reject recognition of Thornhill Court as a bargaining unit.

14)       The Union submitted that there were no existing bargaining arrangements within the Employer, reinforcing the appropriateness of recognising Thornhill Court as a separate unit.

15)       The Union stated that the Employer has only expressed opposition to collective bargaining and had not provided any alternative proposals or technical reasons against recognising Thornhill Court. The only solution offered was based on current legislative allowances, which the workers in the proposed bargaining unit did not find acceptable.

16)       The Union explained that it had considered the Employer’s concerns about a fragmented bargaining unit but stated that it would work collaboratively to minimise disruption if another Trade Union wanted to bargain with the Employer.

17)       The Union stated that it had not been provided with information regarding the grading spine or any documentation related to the harmonisation of pay grades for all workers.

18)       The Union highlighted that the Employer applied different rent prices based on the location of residential facilities, which directly affected staffing costs.

19)       The Union stated that regarding cover arrangements, employees generally covered for each other within their own site and rarely moved between different locations.

20)       The Union explained that there would not be an issue of equal pay within the Employer, as all workers within Thornhill Court were women. It noted that those outside the proposed bargaining unit would still be comparable. However, it cautioned that if, for example, a male cook was employed and paid more than a female cook outside the bargaining unit, an equal pay issue could arise.

21)       The Union stated that if TUPE applied, the Employer would be legally obligated to honour existing terms and conditions as well as pay arrangements. The Employer confirmed that this requirement would be workable within its current management structure.

22)       The Union believed the proposed bargaining unit was both workable and viable, as it brought together employees from different roles who had already demonstrated solidarity by taking collective action. These workers had been actively fighting for recognition and the ability to engage in collective bargaining, which was central to their efforts. The previous strike was part of the trade dispute arising from their request for recognition being rejected, which was why the matter was now before the CAC. While they had not yet raised specific pay-related issues, they could not negotiate on pay without trade union representation, and the primary reason for pursuing this process was to secure the right to bargain collectively on common issues affecting them.

5. Submissions from the Employer

23)       The Employer stated it did not oppose union recognition in principle but considered the Union’s proposed bargaining unit inappropriate. It argued the Union’s proposal failed to meet even a modest standard of appropriateness and appeared to be based only on the fact that it included all of the Union’s members within Thornhill Court, rather than reflecting an effective management structure or serving workers’ best interests. The Employer noted the Union had not offered any meaningful alternatives and insisted that treating Thornhill Court as a distinct operational unit was an “artificial” approach inconsistent with how the Employer’s services, roles, and properties were managed and funded.

24)       The Employer stated that it had no national or local bargaining arrangements with trade unions, and overall trade union membership within the organisation was low. Union presence was mainly concentrated at Thornhill Court, and because few employees paid union fees through payroll, the Employer could not confirm total membership numbers but believed they were small. Nevertheless, the Employer engaged with several unions on workplace matters, some of which had broader membership across its workforce.

25)       The Employer expressed concern that granting union recognition for a single standalone service—Thornhill Court, which operated as Retirement Housing with Meals (RHWM)—could set a precedent for other locations to seek similar arrangements. This could lead to multiple bargaining units across its 117 services, creating a fragmented and inconsistent approach to collective bargaining. While overall union membership was low, some unions had a stronger presence in other parts of the organisation, which could result in negotiating with multiple unions. The Employer believed this would make it difficult to maintain consistency and fairness across staff groups and could potentially cause dissatisfaction among employees.

26)       The Employer also considered that such an arrangement could undermine its ability to manage operations effectively and maintain fair, transparent, and affordable service costs for tenants. For these reasons, the Employer viewed the proposed approach as complex, divisive, and incompatible with effective organisational management.

27)       The Employer argued that the proposed bargaining unit included employees in several different roles that did not share enough common interests or terms and conditions to form an appropriate unit. The roles did not cover all staff involved in delivering services to Thornhill Court tenants, and the mix of positions would make collective bargaining ineffective. Referring to a previous CAC case^{[footnote 1]}, that ‘having two groups with fundamentally different characteristics in the same bargaining unit would not be compatible with effective management.’ the Employer submitted that combining groups with fundamentally different characteristics within one bargaining unit was not compatible with effective management. In this instance, the eight employees held five distinct roles, each differing significantly from the others.

28)       The Employer operated a consistent pay and grading structure across all roles and services to ensure fairness, equity, and comparability. These structures were based on job evaluation and allowed flexibility, career development, and service stability across different geographical areas. The harmonisation of the pay grades for all staff occurred between 2023 and 2024 and that initially pay was determined based on location and this was changed to ensure that all staff were on the same hours and pay.

29)       Managers in RHWM roles shared the same job description and fell under Salary Broadband 1, which included other managerial positions but not the Retirement Housing (RH) Manager. Deputy Managers were placed in Salary Broadband 2, along with RH Managers and other frontline roles excluded from the Union’s proposed group. Assistants (across RH, RHWM, and Retirement Housing Plus (RH+)) shared job descriptions and fell under the Scottish Living Wage grouping at the entry level of Broadband 2, along with Support Workers (non-qualified) and Domestic Assistants. Cooks shared job descriptions across services and were banded with qualified Support Workers to reflect market conditions. Casual workers were paid hourly at the entry point of the job they covered, while others were salaried.

30)       The Employer’s annual pay review aligned with affordability limits and its commitment to raising lower pay levels above the Scottish Living Wage while maintaining fair pay differentials. Recent pay uplifts included 5% for Modern Apprentices, 4.9% for Scottish Living Wage (SLW) grades, 4.9% for key supervisory roles, 3% for other roles, and a separate mid-year adjustment for Cook roles due to market challenges.

31)       The Employer explained that rent was set to cover staffing costs based on the number of tenancies within a development, ensuring there were sufficient staff to manage the property effectively. The core rent was determined by the size of the development, while the staff cost component was calculated as a percentage of the total staffing expenses necessary to operate the development. Staffing included roles such as the property manager, property office personnel, and backroom staff. The only variation in pay was determined by the size of the development.

32)       The Employer argued that the roles within the proposed bargaining unit differ significantly in terms of pay structure and operational context, making collective bargaining impractical. It believed that collective bargaining could undermine fairness and consistency across services, distort pay relationships, and increase tenant costs, since staffing charges directly affect service and rent levels. Differences in salaries between services would lead to higher tenant service charges, and the Employer was unable to absorb these additional costs due to strict budgetary constraints.

33)       The Union’s proposed bargaining unit consisted entirely of female workers, which raised potential equal pay concerns. Although the Employer’s overall workforce was predominantly female (84%), there were male comparators in each relevant role (Manager, Deputy Manager, Cook, Assistant, and Casual Worker). If pay rates differed between these male comparators and the female workers in the proposed bargaining unit, it could result in an equal pay issue, as pay and grading were reviewed by role. This meant a male employee in the same role as a female worker at Thornhill Court could be paid less for the same job, which may have legal and reputational implications.

34)       Within the proposed bargaining unit, managers worked a standard 35-hour week from Monday to Friday, while deputy managers covered 18 hours from Friday afternoon through Sunday. Assistants and cooks held part-time positions with fixed rotas, contributing a combined total of 49 to 56 hours per development. Casual workers, on the other hand, had variable schedules with no guaranteed hours.

35)       The workers received different annual leave entitlements based on start dates and roles. Some received 37 days per year (pro‑rated for part‑timers), others 34 days, some only the statutory entitlement based on hours worked and all entitlements include public holidays. Office and support staff must take six fixed public holidays, while 24/7 operational staff can take these flexibly. Local managers approved leave for their teams, but the Area Housing Manager authorises managers’ own leave, meaning some authorisation sits outside local developments. These variations complicated collective bargaining since entitlements and authorisation structures differed significantly across roles. Adjusting holiday entitlements for one service would raise staffing costs and, consequently, tenant service charges, as additional cover must be budgeted. The Employer argued it could not absorb these costs within existing financial constraints.

36)       The Employer considered whether a geography-based unit based on the one site would support effective management and found it unsuitable. The 15 patch areas were reviewed annually, with managers and services changing regularly, so geographical boundaries were not fixed. The Employer believed a role or service based bargaining unit was more appropriate, as it ensured consistent pay and conditions for those in similar roles and avoided disruption caused by changes in geography.

37)       The Employer had already established a Core Employee Forum with up to 12 elected representatives, alongside the Head of HR. The Forum supported employee voice, health and safety, wellbeing, and strategic or operational projects. It also provided formal consultation on employment terms, conditions, and pay, including the annual pay award, across all areas of the organisation and its services.

38)       The Employer operated within strict budget limits as all income from tenants funds both services and staff, with developments like Thornhill Court ineligible for external funding and income from Local Authorities only applied to specific contracted services. Budgets were allocated centrally after consultation with stakeholders and workers, prioritising tenants’ needs, and as a Scottish Charity and Registered Social Landlord, the Employer could not reallocate resources once budgets were set. Any additional costs, such as higher pay or extra holidays for Thornhill Court staff, would be passed to tenants.

39)       In its written submission the Employer set out a table which showed a breakdown of various groups in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit with the total number of workers employed in each category compared to the number in Union’s proposed bargaining unit. For example, there are 337 workers under the following category of Scottish Living Wage / Apprentices which comprises modern apprentices and domestic assistants and of those 337 only five were in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. In another category there were 120 workers categorised as Salary Broadband 2: Frontline Manager/Supervisory Roles and of that number, only one was in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. There were 309 workers categorised as Housing Services RH and RHWM (All roles) and of that eight were within the proposed bargaining unit. There were 187 workers categorised as Supported Living Services (RH+ and Day Care Bield at Home (All roles)) with none falling within the proposed bargaining unit.

40)       Therefore, based on the above, the Employer proposed the following two options: the first option was based around its approach to Pay and Grading Structure and Roles and would ensure that those undertaking the same or broadly similar roles were paid the same and that any differences were objectively justified. This reflected existing governance arrangements for pay decisions and ensured fair consideration of factors relevant to specific roles as part of pay aware consideration i.e. SLW, Adult Social Care Pay and Pay Differentials.

41)       The second option was Service Based which would cover all employees within a particular core service and this would ensure consistent and fair decision making in relation to tenant charges. It would support equity of decision making for those undertaking the same roles in different services, regardless of location.

42)       The Employer clarified that at no point had the Union requested a copy of the pay grades and this was readily available on the staff Intranet and would have been provided if requested.

43)       The Employer explained that if pay was different between geographical locations, it would not allow the Employer to ensure there was staff to cover sickness or leave in other developments. It was common practice for both casual staff and management to provide cover when needed for example, during strike action, other staff were required to attend the Thornhill Court site to ensure service continuity. Furthermore, staff were often circulated to cover gaps caused by sick leave, training, or annual leave and this flexible approach helped maintain service levels across developments.

44)       In answer to a Panel query the Employer confirmed that there were no senior cooks within the organisation but there were area managers that managed meal directions and all the cooks had standard cook roles.

45)       Asked whether all employees were paid the same regardless of their location the Employer stated that all employees were on the same terms and conditions and that those within the proposed bargaining unit shared the same job descriptions and terms and conditions as their counterparts in other locations. However, for employees hired before 2018 who worked in residential care homes, there may have been slight differences. The main change over time related to the implementation of the Scottish Living Wage (SLW), which had helped reduce the pay gap between roles.

46)       In response to a Panel question about recruitment challenges, the Employer explained that firstly, there were difficulties in sourcing staff for developments located in more isolated areas. Such locations posed logistical issues as it was less feasible to relocate existing staff. As a result, there was often a reliance on agency workers to fill these gaps. Secondly, agency staff were paid the frontline Scottish Living Wage, while apprentices received a different rate due to the additional support they received for training and qualifications.

47)       The Panel also queried the frequency with which staff worked across different developments, including the Thornhill Court. While the term “regularly” was used, it was acknowledged that a more precise description would be preferable. The Employer explained that staff movement was based on operational structure and typically occurred when covering training, sickness, or annual leave. Internal cover was sought first, but this was not always possible. In such cases, staff from other developments, management, casual workers, or agency staff may be used to provide cover. This was a common occurrence; however, the Employer was not able to provide an exact figure as to frequency and it was noted that the cost of overtime was generally lower than that of agency staff. The Employer further explained there was a mobility clause in place that allowed staff to cover other areas, but location and travel time were considered to ensure practicality. Additionally, some roles required specific qualifications, meaning staff could not be moved to another location unless they met the necessary criteria.

48)       The Employer explained that it had not experienced any TUPE transfers in the last eight years and that whilst it had never TUPE-transferred a care home, it would accept a property transfer under TUPE, if necessary. If it was to bring in another property under TUPE this would end the current tenancies because they were a social landlord. It would purchase the building, and its focus would be on achieving positive harmonisation throughout the process.

49)       The Employer explained that as well as Thornhill Court, three other developments and six to seven retirement homes were also located in Falkirk. There were some differences between these sites, for example cooks would not be present in the retirement homes. Thornhill Court was typical of other developments, employing eight people who worked the same hours as staff in other locations.

50)       The Employer submitted that there were differences within the proposed bargaining unit, and therefore the proposed bargaining unit would not work for Thornhill Court. It was unable to accept the recognition request and could not support union membership within Thornhill Court. While it had not prevented harmonisation across all sites, it did not believe the proposed bargaining unit met the necessary requirements.

6. Considerations

51)       As set out earlier, 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. Paragraphs 19B(1) and (2) state that, in making those decisions, the Panel must take into account:

(a)    the need for the unit to be compatible with effective management; and

(b)   the matters listed in paragraph 19B(3) of the Schedule so far as they do not conflict with that need.

52)       The matters listed in paragraph 19B(3) are:

(a)   the views of the employer and the union;

(b)   existing national and local bargaining arrangements;

(c) the desirability of avoiding small, fragmented bargaining units within an undertaking;

(d)   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

(e)   the location of workers.

53)       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.

54)       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.

55)       The Panel’s first responsibility is to decide, in accordance with paragraph 19(2) of the Schedule, whether the bargaining unit proposed by the Union is appropriate. The overriding requirement under paragraph 19B(2) is the need for the unit to be compatible with effective management which relates principally to the matters to be collectively bargained under the statutory regime, namely pay, hours and holidays.

56)       As the parties accept, the requirement that the proposed bargaining unit is appropriate is pitched at the comparatively modest level of appropriateness, rather than of the optimum or best possible outcome. That does not require the Panel to determine whether it is the most appropriate bargaining unit; merely whether it is appropriate. The focus is on the question whether the bargaining unit is compatible with effective management. That involves consideration of whether the bargaining unit proposed is compatible with effective management rather than whether it is compatible with the most effective management, or the precise management structure that the Employer wishes to adopt. 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.

57)       As to the matters set out in paragraph 18B(3), the parties agree that sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) do not arise on the facts of this case. In respect of sub-paragraph (a), the Panel has taken account of the views of the Union and the Employer as expressed during the hearing and in their written submissions. The Panel will comment on the factors at sub-paragraphs (d) and (e) as appropriate below.

58)       Finally, whether the proposed bargaining unit is compatible with effective management is a matter for the Panel’s judgment in the circumstances of the particular case. The fact that the bargaining unit may be an isolated and small part of the Employer’s business is a consideration to be taken into account but is not necessarily a bar to the unit being deemed appropriate as compatible with effective management.

59)       The Panel finds that the bargaining unit proposed by the Union is appropriate as being compatible with effective management. When considering compatibility with effective management, the focus is on management of issues about pay, hours and holidays by means of collective bargaining, rather than day-to-day line management of staff. The Panel finds that the practical difficulties that the Employer suggests would arise are overstated. There is nothing unusual about collective bargaining on a geographical basis or in this case an individual site.

60)       The Panel appreciates that if the Union is successful in collective bargaining it may obtain benefits for workers based at the site that are not available to workers based at other sites. That is the case for employees in all jobs. It is inherent where there is recognition in part of a business, but not throughout the business, as commonly is the case.

61)       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. In relation to existing national and local bargaining units, there are none within the Employer’s business. The Union’s proposed bargaining unit would cover 8 workers out of a total of 858 employed on salary and hourly paid contracts across all brands nationwide. There is no evidence of any further demands for recognition elsewhere. As far as the characteristics of workers are concerned, all those within the Union’s proposed bargaining unit are salary and hourly paid. They are based at a single location. The Panel has had regard to the objectives set out in paragraph 171 of the Schedule in reaching its decision and is satisfied that the proposed bargaining unit achieves those objectives.

7. Decision

62)       The Panel’s decision is therefore that the appropriate bargaining unit is “All workers based at Bield Housing & Care, Thornhill Court, Falkirk FK2 9HH.”

Panel

Ms Laura Prince K.C., Panel Chair

Mr Mark Pennifold

Mr Matt Smith OBE

18 November 2025

8. Appendix A

Names of those who attended the hearing

Union:

Keir Greenaway          -           GMB Scotland Senior Organiser

Employer

Nicola Ritchie             -           Director of People and Digital, Bield Housing and Care

Keren Faulds               -           Head of HR, Bield Housing and Care

Claire Fowler               -           Associate, Harper MacLeod LLP

---

1. Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians (UCATT) & Unite the Union v Hillhouse Quarry Company Case Number: TUR1/0735 (2010) ↩