Decision

Decision

Updated 9 October 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: DI/07/2025

09 October 2025

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SECTION 183 – DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION

The Parties:

GMB

and

Edinburgh College

1. Introduction

1)         GMB (the Union) submitted a complaint to the CAC dated 4 July 2025 pursuant to section 183 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULCRA/the Act). The complaint related to an alleged failure by Edinburgh College (the Employer) to disclose information for the purposes of collective bargaining. The Employer submitted a response to the Union’s complaint dated 11 July 2025 which was copied to the Union.

2)         In accordance with section 263 of the Act, the CAC Chair established a Panel to consider the complaint. The Panel consisted of Ms Naeema Choudry, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Alastair Kelly and Ian Hanson who was, for the determination of this matter, replaced by Paul Moloney. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kaniza Bibi.

2. The Complaint

3)         The complaint was made in respect of “Edinburgh College” based at Milton Road Campus, 24 Milton Road, East Edinburgh, EH15 2PP. The Union stated that it had requested information for collective bargaining purposes on 13 June 2025. In its complaint, the Union stated that it had requested, the following information for collective bargaining purposes:

• List of all job titles, number of employees in each role and grade

• Male/Female split per job title and per grade

• List of all workplaces, job titles per workplaces (number of FTE per Job Title)

• List of all applicable bonuses and payments

• Scottish Local Government Pension Scheme re-enrolment date

• Total Payroll costs, FTE and Headcount

• Pay scales

• Organisational charts

4)         When asked to give details of the collective bargaining purpose for which the Union requested the information, the Union stated that it had requested the information regarding collective bargaining on pay.

5)         When asked to give details as to how it had been materially impeded in collective bargaining by not receiving the information the Union stated that without the information requested the Union would be impeded from playing a full and active role in negotiations of pay. And that it also hindered its ability to discuss and propose alternative options as part of said negotiations.

6)         When asked to give details about the way it considered it would be in accordance with good industrial relations practice for the Employer to disclose the information, the Union stated that this information should be readily available to the Employer, but they had refused which the Union believed damaged industrial relations. Also, other colleges within the sector have looked to provide this information as part of pay negotiations.

3. Overview of Employers response to the Complaint

7)         On 11 July 2025, the Employer confirmed that the Union was recognised for collective bargaining for the workers described in the Union’s application and accepted that the Union had requested the information set out in its application to the CAC. However, when asked if it accepted that the Union had requested information for the purposes of collective bargaining, the Employer responded no.

8)         The Employer said it was unclear what the purpose of the information request was and that the Union was recognised for the purpose of collective bargaining as part of a national agreement between twenty-six Scottish Further Education colleges and four trade unions. The Employer explained that, under the agreement, seats at each side table are allocated to each union in proportion to its membership in that area. The Employer said it understood that the request related to the Support Staff side table, and this table comprised of five management-side members and five staff-side members. The Employer said that of the five staff-side members, the Union currently only have one seat, and the remaining four seats are divided amongst Unison (three) and Unite (one).

9)         The Employer clarified that there was currently a live pay claim that had been negotiated through the Support Staff Side Table, and it understood that Unison and Unite would recommend this pay offer to their members when it was it would be put to ballot. The Employer said therefore there was no collective bargaining to which this information could relate to, and it remained unclear why this information has been requested at this time.

10)       When asked if the Employer refused to disclose the information requested by the Union, as claimed in the application, the Employer said yes. And the reason for refusal was it did not believe that it was obliged to provide the information in terms of its duty under section 181(I), TULRCA and its position was that any of the restrictions in section 182(1), TULRCA applied.

11)       When asked if the Union had contended on the application form that it was materially impeded in collective bargaining by not receiving the information, and what the Employer’s response to this question was, the Employer stated that although the application form provided by the Union claimed material impediment, it did not provide any factual basis for this assertion nor any rationale explaining why it believed this to be the case. It was unclear how the absence of this information impeded the Union and whether such impediment was material. The Employer did not have sufficient information to respond in greater detail to the specifics of this allegation.

12)       The Employer confirmed that a pay claim had already been negotiated through collective bargaining. This claim was being recommended to employees by trade unions representing four of the five staff-side members on this side table. As only one pay claim at a time was competent under the joint negotiating framework, no further bargaining would take place. It was difficult to see how the absence of this information could hinder the Union in any way.

13)       The Employer was asked to confirm that if the Union had contended on its application form that it would be in accordance with good industrial relations practice for the Employer to disclose the information, what its response was. The Employer said that although the Union alleged that the failure to provide the information “damaged” industrial relations, no further specification was provided as to how or why this was the case. The Employer was therefore not in a position to respond to any particular aspect of good industrial relations practice it was alleged not to have acted in accordance with.

14)       The Employer’s position was that the provision of this information would not have advanced good industrial relations practice. Notwithstanding the Employer’s statutory duty under section 181, TULRCA, the spirit of the agreement was intended to promote good industrial relations at a national level throughout the sector. This envisaged multilateral cooperation between the various colleges and trade unions, and the Union’s request was not made within that spirit.

15)       Finally, the Employer stated that if the College provided the information to the Union as sought, it would have done so contrary to the collective bargaining methods agreed on a national basis, which involved information being sought and exchanged through the side tables. The Employer explained that the national agreement included multiple other trade unions and Colleges as parties and providing the information as sought would have directly undermined the national recognition and procedure agreement and, while meeting the Union’s demands, would therefore have been contrary to good industrial relations practice. The Employer confirmed that ACAS had not attempted to resolve the matter by conciliation.

4. Union’s comments on the Employer’s response to the Complaint

16)       Commenting on the Employer’s response, the Union, in an email dated 15 July 2025, stated that the Employer’s answer to Question 5 was mainly a commentary on the current position of negotiations. The Union said it that there was currently no live offer made by College Employers Scotland (“CES”) to the GMB. Without an offer, the Union did not believe that sister unions and their democratic structures could have decided on a recommendation and following this, there would have needed to be a democratic vote on the offer by the unions. The Union said, even at a point when a majority of the support staff unions accepted the offer, if there was an industrial dispute by one of the unions, negotiations could feasibly have continued.

17)       The Union accepted that, ideally, it would have requested the data earlier, however, as negotiations had not concluded, this information was still being used to support GMB in any bargaining that remained. The Union said that the extent of bargaining that remained was currently unforeseeable, but what was known was that bargaining was not complete until pay offers were accepted. The Union further stated that the Employer seemed to suggest that they did not need to abide by statute, which was confusing. The Union confirmed that the College agreed they bargained for workers and that there were no restrictions but that they should not need to disclose bargaining information. The Union explained that the College’s answer as part of Question 5 seemed to suggest they would have provided information if a request had been made earlier.

18)       The Union clarified that not having the information as requested restricted their ability to fully analyse the benefit of any offer to their members and to make counter proposals within negotiation process. They stated that the Employer was again asserting that the unions who had not received an offer would make a positive recommendation and that their members would accept it. The Union explained that even if the Employer could foresee all this already, it was not beyond GMB members, in such a scenario, to reject the offer and wish to escalate it to a formal trade dispute, which might have meant further negotiations to resolve any said dispute. The Union confirmed that they hoped this scenario would not arise; however, it could not be ruled out.

19)       Finally, the Union stated that this information should have been readily available, and the College suggested they would have provided it under different circumstances from previous answers. The Union explained that providing this information would not have run contrary to the national bargaining machinery and CES, who handled negotiations, did not hold this information for each college, so the request had to go to the Employer, as the duty to disclose information belonged to individual Employers under the law. The Union felt it was pretty clear that avoiding disclosure of easily accessible information requested for the purposes of collective bargaining for spurious reasons would harm industrial relations. The Union confirmed there was currently no way of knowing that the negotiations were concluded, which was why they suggested that giving that as an excuse for non-disclosure was spurious.

5. Panel Chairs decision to hold Informal meeting

20)       The Unions response was cross copied to the employer on 17 July 2025, the Panel then reconvened and decided to move forward with an informal meeting. A letter was sent to the Union and Employer informing them that an informal meeting was arranged. The purpose of this meeting was to clarify with the parties the areas in dispute, to give any appropriate guidance on the legislation and to establish whether there is any way of assisting the parties to resolve the issue. The Panel chair stated that if the meeting did not result in an agreement the Panel would then be required to determine the complaint and that the parties would be informed at the appropriate time whether this will be done by written submissions or if the Panel considers that a hearing is required.

6. Informal meeting

21)       On 21 July 2025 the parties were informed that the usual practice of the CAC, was to hold an informal meeting to clarify the outstanding issues and to establish whether the matter could be resolved by conciliation before the matter was set down for a formal hearing. An informal meeting took place using Zoom on 14 August 2025. At the meeting the parties were unable to agree however the terminology and description of the information used by the Union in its application and in the Employer’s subsequent response was clarified.

22)       At the end of the informal meeting the Union was asked if it wish to pursue the information requested via a Freedom of Information request, the Union confirmed that they did not want to purse this route and wished to proceed to a hearing before the CAC with a  full Panel. The Employer stated that it would be willing to provide the requested information, but only if the Union submitted a formal request through the CES. Despite this, the parties were unable to reach a resolution, as the Employer maintained its position and declined to provide the information through any other means.

7. The Hearing

23)       A formal hearing took place virtually via Teams on 29 September 2025. The names of those who attended the hearing are appended to this decision. The Union provided submissions prior to the hearing together with supporting documents; the Employer provided a statement of its case together with a supporting evidence and a witness statement. These documents were exchanged, and submitted to the Panel, in advance of the hearing. The Panel confirmed at the outset of the hearing that all submitted documents had been read by them. The Panel are grateful to the parties for their submissions and also for their responses to questions from the Panel during the formal hearing.

24)       Both parties submitted their documents on 18 September 2025, and copies were exchanged between them on 19 September 2025.

8. Summary of the submissions made by the Union

25)   The Union’s submission stated that it had made the request for disclosure of information for collective bargaining purposes on 13 June 2025 and the anniversary date for pay was 1 September 2025. The Union had provided all paperwork submitted up to that date with the written case, so it did not wish to repeat that in its submissions. The Union believed the information requested would support them in pay negotiations and it would help them understand how any offer made could impact those it collectively bargained for and would assist in producing negotiating positions. The Union based its request on a similar template that GMB used to request information within other similar public sector pay bargaining spheres and it had requested information this way from local authorities and NHS boards. The Union said it may have been put forward that this fell outside of the traditional negotiating framework and there was no defined process for requesting information that it had been provided with. The Union also understood that no request had been made of the colleges under the provision of the Act within the timeframe that the National Recognition and Procedures Agreement (“NRPA”) had been in place.

26)          The Union explained that the point might have been made about why a collective request had not been made to the colleges and that the duty within the Act rested with the employer. The Union explained this was why GMB contacted each employer individually to ask for this information. The Union confirmed that they had made requests to all the colleges and had submitted CAC complaints where employers had directly refused to comply. The Union further explained that they made individual requests within the Local Authority and NHS negotiating spaces and had not been met with a refusal in this way.

27)          The Union explained that it had been made clear to them by their sister unions that they did not wish to request information; otherwise, they would have followed ACAS guidance by trying to collate joint requests into a singular request. The Union acknowledged that an argument might have been made that they were too far along in the negotiating process for this information to be provided and it had made its request in June. The Union said although it was true that they were awaiting an offer from the Scottish Government, this had not yet been signed off and even if this was signed off as CES expected, it was yet to be voted on by the trade unions representing support staff within the colleges. The Union confirmed that if the offer was not accepted, there was potential for further negotiations. The Union added that it would have been foolhardy to predict that negotiations were over when an offer was not even on the table.

28)          The Union responding directly to the legislation and referred to section 181(2) of the Act which states:

“The information to be disclosed is all information relating to the employer’s undertaking which is in his possession, or that of an associated employer, and is information-

(a) without which the trade union representatives would be to a material extent impeded in carrying on collective bargaining with him, and

(b) which it would be in accordance with good industrial relations practice that he should disclose to them for the purposes of collective bargaining.”

29)          The Union stated that it believed withholding the information would harm their ability to fully participate in the negotiations, create counter proposals, and fully understand any proposal from CES. The Union explained further that they believed this had already occurred, as they had not been able to fully understand the impact of some negotiations around a minimum underpin. The Union said since the information was readily available to the Employer, that withholding this information would damage industrial relations with the Union. The Union also stated that they were not aware of how providing the information could harm industrial relations with their sister unions and expressed their willingness for the information to be shared with them.

30)          The Union also referred to section 182 of the Act which sets out the various restrictions on the general duty to disclose information and which states:

“An employer is not required by section 181 to disclose information-

(a) the disclosure of which would be against the interests of national security, or

(b) which he could not disclose without contravening a prohibition imposed by or under an enactment, or

(c) which has been communicated to him in confidence, or which he has otherwise obtained in consequence of confidence reposed in him by another person, or

(d) which relates specifically to an individual (unless that individual has consented to its being disclosed), or

(e) the disclosure of which would cause substantial injury to his undertaking for reasons other than its effect on collective bargaining, or

(f) obtained by him for the purpose of bringing, prosecuting or defending any legal proceedings.”

31)          Finally, the Union stated that the Employer had not outlined any part of Section 182 that would apply and therefore hinder disclosure. The Union confirmed that it would contest it if the Employer did suggest at this stage that any part of Section 182 applied. The Union was resolute in its belief that, without the information requested, their full ability to negotiate on behalf of the workforce was materially impeded and that this information should be disclosed.

9. Summary of the submissions made by the Employer

32)       The Employer began by stating that this application turned on whether, in terms of section 181(2) of the Act, the information requested is information:

(a) without which the trade union representatives would be to a material extent impeded in carrying on collective bargaining with him, and

(b) which it would be in accordance with good industrial relations practice that he should disclose to them for the purposes of collective bargaining.

33)       The Employers principal objection to the request is that it disclose information directly to the GMB in response to a request made outside of the established and agreed procedure. While it was of the view that the absence of the information would not impede the union, that was a matter which it had been willing to overlook as a compromise in seeking to promote good industrial relations practice. However, as matters have not been resolved by agreement, it now falls to the CAC to determine whether the College has failed to comply with its obligations and therefore both of the two questions above become relevant.

34)       The Employer’s principal objection was that the request was to disclose information directly to the Union in response to a request made outside of the established and agreed procedure. The Employer said whilst it was of the view that the absence of the information would not impede the union, that was a matter which it had been willing to overlook as a compromise in seeking to promote good industrial relations practice. The Employer clarified as matters had not been resolved by agreement, it then fell to the CAC to determine whether it had failed to comply with its obligations and therefore both of the two questions above became relevant.

35)       Attached to its submissions, the Employer provided the following information:

• Information from John Anderson, Head of National Bargaining and Acting Director of CES, in Q&A form in the submissions below – Appendix 1.

• A statement from Sue Clyne, Director of Human Resources and Organisation Development at the College (and a member of Management Side under the National Recognition and Procedures Agreement (NRPA)) – Appendix 2 (separate document)

• A copy of the NRPA. – Appendix 3 (separate document).

36)       The Employer said there was no realistic prospect of pay negotiations until 2028 and it was understood that there did not need to be a live pay negotiation for the information to be required. However, the Employer stated that the test was not met where there was a purely speculative and hypothetical possibility of a pay negotiation opening at some point. The Employer confirmed that the only likely pay negotiation to take place in due course was for the period from 2028 and beyond; by that time, any information provided then would no longer be current and, therefore, required.

37)       The Employer said the test could only be met where there was a realistic prospect of relevant collective bargaining, for which the union must prepare. The Employer clarified that, of course, should something emerge making pay negotiations a realistic prospect, then the absence of information might become problematic (if the information was relevant). The Employer stated that the request was extremely premature, and the CAC did not have a role in determining what should be disclosed in the future.

38)       The Employer confirmed that the information had never been requested in the last ten years, and it was requested several months after negotiations commenced and only in the very final stages of negotiation. The Employer stated it was requested at such a late stage that it could not have been provided, considered, or been influential over negotiations. The Employer clarified that, had it been information that was necessary, it was information that would have been sought by the unions at some point in the previous ten years. The Employer said that even if it suddenly became material that year, it would have been requested earlier.

39)       The Employer said it was unsurprising that it had never been considered necessary to have college-by-college information, rather than the national overview, for the purposes of national bargaining. The Employer stated that no explanation had been offered for why information that no union had considered necessary for ten years, and was only sought at a very late stage, was now information without which the Union would be impeded to a material extent. The Employer clarified that no suggestion had been made that there were any special circumstances that year, such as those outlined in Ruston Diesels Ltd and the AEU and others CAC Award 87/1.

40)       The Employer said the information from the College was specific only to the College unless it was compiled with data from the other College signatories, it did nothing to assist the unions in understanding the national picture. The Employer stated that, accordingly, if the information was sought for national bargaining rather than local bargaining, it must be sought from all Colleges, through their joint agent (the CES), rather than directly and from only some individual Colleges. The Employer confirmed that, aside from the incomplete or misleading picture created if only selected Colleges were asked, multiple other problems arose where information was attributable to individual Colleges rather than the national picture, as explained further in Ms Clyne’s statement. Notwithstanding this assertion and the agreed procedure, the Employer accepted that 3 other colleges had provided the information requested by Union in response to direct applications made by the Union to them.

41)       The Employer stated that, in determining what would be in accordance with good industrial relations practice, regard had to be had to the relevant provisions of the Acas Code, but not to the exclusion of any other evidence of what good industrial relations was (section 181(4), TULRCA). The Employer clarified that, accordingly, in addition to referring to the Acas Code, evidence had also been provided of what good industrial relations was in the context of the Further Education sector in Scotland, where there was a split between local bargaining and national bargaining and a long-established process developed under the NRPA.

42)       Acas Code of Practice

The Employer stated that the “Acas Code suggests that employers and trade unions should try to reach a joint understanding on how to implement the statutory disclosure requirements most effectively. In particular, it recommends that they should consider:

• What information is likely to be required, what is available, and what could reasonably be made available.

• How, when and to whom the information will be presented.

• Whether there is information that could most appropriately be provided on a regular basis. (Paragraph 22.)”

43)       The Employer confirmed that this had all happened and had been working in practice for ten years. The Employer stated that the Union, without obvious explanation, wished to deviate from this in relation to some Colleges, contrary to Paragraphs 18 and 16. The Employer said that where two or more trade unions were recognised by an employer for collective bargaining purposes, they should co-ordinate their requests for information whenever possible (Paragraph 18). The Employer clarified that a request should conform to an agreed procedure (Paragraph 16). The Employer added that, in addition, the late stage at which the request was made meant that it did not comply with the obligation to provide employers a reasonable period of time (Paragraph 16). 

44)       The Employer said that if it had wanted to focus solely on avoiding a CAC hearing and the immediate disruption that that involved, it could have provided the information directly to the Union. The Employer stated that the question was whether that decision would have been “in accordance with good industrial relations practice.” The Employer confirmed that the College had decided, for reasons set out in the statement from Ms Clyne, that doing so would not have been responsible or in line with the commitments it made to the various signatories under the NRPA. The Employer clarified that, in particular, the NRPA provided that: “The signatory parties to this Agreement acknowledge the importance of establishing and maintaining confidence in the arrangements voluntarily established under this agreement…”

45)       The Employer said that, as envisaged by the Acas Code, an agreed methodology was particularly important to ensure clarity of expectations and consistency in what could be a tense relationship at times. The Employer clarified that it was all the more important where there was joint recognition and the number of signatories multiplied the importance of agreeing a method and adhering to that method.

46)       The Employer confirmed that the NRPA had thirty signatories, of which the College was one and the Union was another. The Employer stated that it had been in operation for ten years and practices were long established. The Employer clarified that information requests were made by the unions to CES, as the agent for the Colleges. The Employer said that CES compiled the information from the Colleges to provide national information to the trade unions and had never refused or delayed. The Employer confirmed that it would have been contrary to good industrial relations practice for the College, as a single signatory, to deviate from the NRPA and have direct information exchanges with one of the trade union signatories.

47)       The Employer stated that the Union had not offered a reasonable explanation for its decision to depart from established processes, which had worked well for ten years. The Employer said that had there been a reasonable explanation, the College ought to have considered the matter and in line with the Acas Code sought to establish an alternative agreement about how information should be disclosed. The Employer confirmed that, in the absence of a reasonable explanation or an alternative agreed method among signatories, it would have been wholly improper for the College to join the Union in its departure from the approach agreed and adopted nationally.

48)       The Employer confirmed that it had consulted with other signatories and that no signatories had encouraged the College to accede to the Union’s requested departure. The Employer clarified that the College’s view was shared by Mr Anderson of College Employers Scotland (“CES”), who was the Joint Secretary for the NRPA and represented all of the College signatories.

49)       Finally, the Employer respectfully submitted that the CAC should accept the evidence provided by Ms Clyne and Mr Anderson for their desire to adhere to established practices. The Employer stated that their evidence would be supported by the CAC’s own experience that these relationships could be tense and that it was for good reason that the Acas Code recommended adhering to an agreed approach. The Employer said that a deviation from an arrangement which was working well would be contrary to the expectations and desires of the majority of signatories and would be a high-risk, unnecessary experiment to impose. The Employer submitted that the application should be refused for one or both of the following reasons:

• The absence of the information, at least at that stage, would not materially impede national bargaining.

• In any event, it would be contrary to good industrial relations practice for the College to deviate from established practice by engaging in a direct information exchange of College-specific information between the College and the Union.

10. The Relevant Law

50)       The legislative provisions can be found in sections 181 to 184 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 which the Panel has reviewed in conjunction with the Acas Code of Practice.

Section 181 of the Act provides that:

(1)       An employer who recognises an independent trade union shall, for the purposes of all stages of collective bargaining about matters, and in relation to descriptions of workers, in respect of which the union is recognised by him, disclose to representatives of the union, on request, the information required by this section.

In this section and sections 182 to 185 “representative”, in relation to a trade union, means an official or other person authorised by the union to carry on such collective bargaining

(2) The information to be disclosed is all information relating to the employer’s undertaking (including information relating to use of agency workers in that undertaking) which is in his possession, or that of an associated employer, and is information –

(a)       without which the trade union representatives would be to a material extent impeded in carrying on collective bargaining with him, and

(b)       which it would be in accordance with good industrial relations practice that he should disclose to them for the purposes of collective bargaining.

(3)       A request by trade union representatives for information under this section shall, if the employer so requests, be in writing or be confirmed in writing.

(4)       In determining what would be in accordance with good industrial relations practice, regard shall be had to the relevant provisions of any Code of Practice issued by ACAS, but not so as to exclude any other evidence of what that practice is.

(5)       Information which an employer is required by virtue of this section to disclose to trade union representatives shall, if they so request, be disclosed or confirmed in writing.

51)       Section 182(1) sets out circumstances wherein an employer is not required to disclose information. The Panel noted that none of the defences listed in Section 182(1) had been put forward by the Employer in this case. The Employer did touch upon the issue of commercial sensitivity of data in both its written and oral submissions but did not seek to suggest that this amounted to one of the defences listed in Section 182(1). The arguments put forward by the Employer for non-disclosure were based on whether the Union could be said to be materially impeded in carrying out collective bargaining under Section 181(2)(a).

52)       Section 182(2) then sets out further restrictions on the employer’s duty to disclose. It provides that in performing its duty under section 181 an employer is not required -

(a)  to produce, or allow inspection of, any document (other than a document prepared for the purpose of conveying or confirming the information) or to make a copy of or extracts from any document, or

(b)  to compile or assemble any information where the compilation or assembly would involve an amount of work or expenditure out of reasonable proportion to the value of the information in the conduct of collective bargaining.

The Panel noted that the Employer did not seek to argue that the information sought would require a disproportionate amount of time, effort and resources to provide.

53)       Section 183 is the enabling provision that allows a complaint to be made to the CAC in circumstances whereby an employer has either failed to disclose to representatives of the union information which it was required to disclose under section 181, or it failed to confirm such information in writing. This section then goes on to set out how the CAC should dispose of a complaint brought under these provisions.

11. Considerations

54)       The Panel’s decision on this complaint has been taken after a full and careful consideration of the submissions of both parties as expressed in their written submissions and amplified at the hearing. The Panel records its gratitude for the forbearance shown by the parties in answering the many questions put during the course of the hearing and which greatly assisted our understanding of their respective positions on the matters that are subject to this complaint.

55)       The question for the Panel to address is whether, given the circumstances of this case, the Employer is under the duty set out in section 181 to disclose the information requested by the Union. If the Panel is to find in the Union’s favour and uphold its complaint, it must be satisfied that the conditions set out in section 181 are satisfied.   

56)          Turning to the tests under section 181(2), for the Employer to be under a duty to disclose information to the Union, it has to be information without which the Union would be to a material extent impeded in carrying out collective bargaining with the Employer. If the Panel is satisfied that this is the case, it will then move on to consider the second limb under section 181(2) and whether it would be in accordance with good industrial relations practice that the Employer should disclose the information for the purposes of collective bargaining. To assist the Panel with its determination as to what would be in accordance with good industrial relations practice, the Act states that the Panel should have regard to the relevant provisions of any Code of Practice issued by Acas, but not so as to exclude any other evidence of what that practice is. The Panel reminded themselves of the provisions of the Code of Practice and particularly paragraph 9 of that Code “…particularly if the information would influence the formulation, presentation or pursuance of a claim…” and paragraph 11(v).

57)          Clearly, the purpose of the disclosure provisions is to encourage the flow of information with the aim that it improves a Union’s knowledge of the relevant undertaking and therefore its ability to take part in the process of collective bargaining with an employer. The information concerned must have some relevance to whichever element of collective bargaining happens to be the subject of the parties’ negotiations. The test in section 181(2)(a) refers to information without which the trade union would be impeded. In other words, does the absence of this information hinder the Union’s efforts to take part in collective bargaining with the Employer.

12. Decision

58)       Given that there is currently no offer from CES in relation to a pay offer and the parties have no indication as to when any offer may made, the Panel does not accept the assertion of the Employer that the information is not required as the next pay negotiations will not be commenced until 2028 and, as such, any information provided by the Employer will be out of date when the next negotiations commence. The Panel is satisfied, for the reasons submitted by the Union, that the Union would be materially impeded in collective bargaining in relation to the pay negotiations if it is not provided with all of the information requested by the Union, save for the information relating to the pension re-enrolment date. The Panel does not consider that the information relating to the pension re-enrolment date is required for the purposes of pay negotiations. As such, the Employer should disclose the information as detailed in paragraph 4, with the exception of Scottish Local Government Pension Scheme re-enrolment date. The information should be provided to the Union within two weeks of this declaration. Specifically, to confirm that the following information should be provided:

• List of all job titles, number of employees in each role and grade

• Male/Female split per job title and per grade

• List of all workplaces, job titles per workplaces (number of FTE per Job Title)

• List of all applicable bonuses and payments

• Total Payroll costs, FTE and Headcount

• Pay scales

• Organisational charts

Panel

Ms Naeema Choudry, Panel Chair

Alastair Kelly

Paul Moloney

09 October 2025

13. APPENDIX

Names of those who attended the hearing

On behalf of the Trade Union

Keir Greenaway                                      GMB Scotland Senior Organiser

On behalf of the Employer

Andrew Brown                                        Specialist in Employment Law