Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 22 December 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1516(2025)

22 December 2025

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECISION ON WHETHER TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATION

The Parties:

GMB

and

Lindsay & Gilmour

1. Introduction

1)         GMB (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 2 December 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Lindsay & Gilmour (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “Pharmacy Dispensers and Pharmacy Technicians.”

2)         The location of the bargaining unit was given as Linsday & Gimour Pharmacy branches; Elm Row 11 Elm Row, Edinburgh, EH7 4AA Leith Walk 257a Leith Walk, Edinburgh, EH6 8NY. The application was received by the CAC on 2 December 2025, and the CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 2 December 2025. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 8 December 2025 which was copied to the Union.

3)         In accordance with section 263 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (the Act), the CAC Chair established a Panel to deal with the case. The Panel consisted of Mr Jonathan Gray, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Joseph Corcos and Mr Matt Smith OBE. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Joanne Curtis.

4)         The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 16 December 2025. The acceptance period was extended to 30 January 2026 in order to allow time for the parties to comment on the results of a membership check and for the Panel to consider said comments before arriving at a decision.  

2. Issues

5)         The Panel is required by paragraph 15 of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule) to decide whether the Union’s application to the CAC is valid within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9; is made in accordance with paragraphs 11 or 12; is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 33 to 42; and therefore, should be accepted.

3. Summary of the Union’s application

6)         In its application to the CAC the Union stated that it had made a request for recognition to the Employer dated 20 August 2025. The Union said that the Employer responded on 21 August 2025 declining the request. The Union attached copies of the letters to its application.

7)         When asked whether the Union had made a previous application under the Schedule for statutory recognition for workers in the proposed bargaining unit or a similar unit the Union answered, “yes, the application was not accepted on the grounds of no likely majority support. This application now includes a petition of workers in the bargaining unit with a view to meeting the second test of likely support.” The Union stated that, following receipt of the request for recognition, the Employer did not propose that Acas should be requested to assist the parties.

8)         The Union stated that the total number of workers employed by the Employer was estimated to be 114. The Union stated that there were eleven workers in the proposed bargaining unit and did not say whether the Employer agreed with this figure. When asked to state the number of union members in the proposed bargaining unit and to provide evidence to support this figure the Union said it had four members in the proposed bargaining unit and that it would be happy to submit to a membership check. When asked to provide evidence that the majority of workers in the bargaining unit would be likely to support recognition for collective bargaining the Union said “GMB have petitioned 10 staff in the bargaining unit with 9 in favour of recognition, results available on request.”

9)         The Union stated that the reason for selecting the proposed bargaining unit was because “these are the groups of workers we have become aware of through GMB membership.” The Union said that the bargaining unit had not been agreed with the Employer. In answer to the question whether there was any existing recognition agreement which it was aware of which covered any workers in the bargaining unit, the Union answered, “none we are aware of.”

10)       The Union confirmed that it held a current certificate of independence. The Union stated that it had copied its application and supporting documents to the Employer on 2 December 2025.

4. Summary of the Employer’s response to the Union’s application

11)       The Employer said that it had received the Union’s written request for recognition on 20 August 2025. The Employer said that it had responded on 21 August 2025 declining the request. The Employer attached a copy of the letter to its response document.

12)       The Employer confirmed that it had received a copy of the Union’s application form from the Union on 2 December 2025. The Employer stated that it had not, before receiving a copy of the application form from the Union, agreed the bargaining unit and that it did not agree the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer said the staffing levels in relation to the proposed bargaining unit were incorrect. The Employer said “the correct details are as follows: Elm Row: 3 Dispensers and 2 Trainee Dispensers. Leith Walk: 2 Dispensers, 3 Trainee Dispensers and 1 Pharmacy Technician.”

13)       The Employer stated that it had 353 employees. The Employer said that it did not agree with the number of workers in the bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application and said, “there are 11 staff in the bargaining unit and not 10 as stated.” The Employer repeated the staffing levels outlined in paragraph 12 above. The Employer said that there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit. In answer to the question whether it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer answered, “we agree with the membership in the proposed bargaining unit being 4, on the condition that this was verified by the CAC on consideration of the previous application.”

14)       When asked to give its reasons if it did not consider that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit would be likely to support recognition, the Employer said “we have no evidence that the majority of workers in the bargaining unit are likely to support recognition as no evidence has been submitted with the application by the GMB.”

15)       In answer to the question whether it was aware of any previous application under Schedule A1 for statutory recognition made by this Trade Union in respect of this bargaining unit or a similar bargaining unit, the Employer answered, “a previous application was made by the GMB to the CAC on 8th September 2025, which was refused on 6th October 2025.” When asked if it had received any other applications in respect of workers in the proposed bargaining unit the Employer answered, “not applicable.” The Employer said that it consented to its contact details being forwarded to Acas.

5. Summary of the Union’s comments on the Employer’s response to the application

16)       In an email dated 9 December 2025 the Union said that it had not had an opportunity to agree or confirm the bargaining unit with the Employer as the Employer had not engaged with them. The Union said that it had not had an opportunity to confirm the number of employees the Employer had as the Employer had not engaged with them. The Union said it would be happy to engage with another membership check and could provide a petition that would demonstrate evidence “of a majority in favour of recognition that may be checked against the Employer’s submission.”

6. The membership and support check

17)       To assist in the determination of two of the admissibility criteria specified in the Schedule, namely, whether 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit are members of the union (paragraph 36(1)(a)) and whether a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit (paragraph 36(1)(b)), the Panel proposed an independent check of the level of union membership within the proposed bargaining unit and a petition supplied by the Union. It was agreed with the parties that the Employer would supply to the Case Manager a list of the names, dates of birth and job titles of workers within the proposed bargaining unit, and that the Union would supply to the Case Manager a list of its paid-up members within that unit (including their dates of birth) and also a copy of its petition. It was explicitly agreed with both parties that, to preserve confidentiality, the respective lists would not be copied to the other party. These arrangements were confirmed in a letter dated 9 December 2025 from the Case Manager to both parties.

18)       The information requested from the Union was received by the CAC on 9 December 2025 and from the Employer on 11 December 2025. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.   

19)       The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were eleven workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained four names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was four a membership level of 36.36%.

20)       The Union also provided a paper petition which consisted of one page with two columns headed, “Name” and “Yes/No.” Above the columns the following was written:

“GMB Petition of Lindsay & Gilmour Technicians and Pharmacists

GMB Edinburgh are currently trying to gain recognition with Lindsay & Gilmour for Technicians and Dispensers at the Leith Walk and Elm Row stores. Please note participating in this petition does not require you to join a Trade Union, it just means that you are in favour generally of Trade Union recognition at the two stores named above.

If you do want to join GMB please let Sarra McLaren know.

The Company will not know who has signed this petition, it is checked and approved by the Central Arbitration and not provided to Lindsay & Gilmour.

Are you in favour of Lindsay & Gilmour’s Elm Row and Leith Walk Stores recognising GMB Trade Union?”

21)       The check of the petition showed that it had been signed by nine workers in the proposed bargaining unit, a figure which represents 81.82% of the proposed bargaining unit. Four of the petition signatories were members of the Union (36.36%) and five (45.45%), of the petition signatories, were non-members. A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 15 December 2025, and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by noon on 18 December 2025.

7. Summary of the Employer’s comments following the membership and support check

22)       In an email dated 18 December 2025 the Employer said “we accept the report on the membership and support check completed by the CAC and therefore any decision made with regards to union recognition.”

8. Summary of the Union’s comments following the membership and support check

23)       The Union in an email dated 15 December 2025 said “the only comment GMB would like to make is that all nine Lindsay and Gilmour workers in the Bargaining Unit identified and confirmed by cross referencing here have responded ‘yes’ to the question in our petition.”

9. Considerations

24)       In determining whether to accept the application the Panel must decide whether the admissibility and validity provisions referred to in paragraph 4 above are satisfied. The Panel has considered carefully the submissions of both parties and all the evidence in reaching its decision. 

25)       The Panel is satisfied that the Union made a valid request to the Employer within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9 of the Schedule and that its application was made in accordance with paragraph 11. Furthermore, the Panel is satisfied that the application is not rendered inadmissible by any of the provisions in paragraphs 33 to 35 and paragraphs 37 to 42 of the Schedule. The remaining issues for the Panel to decide are whether the admissibility criteria contained in paragraphs 36(1)(a) and paragraph 36(1)(b) are met.

Paragraph 36(1)(a)

26)       Under paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule an application is not admissible unless the Panel decides that members of the union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit. References to the bargaining unit are to the bargaining unit proposed by the Union. This is the unit against which the admissibility and validity tests are applied. In their respective responses detailed above the parties have provided a lot of detail on the arguments surrounding the proposed bargaining unit. Whether or not the bargaining unit is appropriate is not an issue and will not be unless the application is accepted by the CAC.

27)       The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 17 to 21 above) showed that 36.36% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 18 above, the Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

28)       For the reasons set out in paragraph 27 above the Panel has decided that members of the union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit as required by paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule.

Paragraph 36(1)(b)

29)       Under paragraph 36(1) of the Schedule, an application is not admissible unless the Panel decides that a majority of the workers constituting the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit. On the basis of the evidence before it, the Panel has decided that Union membership of 36.36% when taken with the 45.45% of non-union members signing the petition shows that, on the balance of probabilities, a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit, as required by paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule.

10. Decision

30)       For the reasons given in paragraphs 24-29 above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Mr Jonathan Gray, Panel Chair

Mr Joseph Corcos

Mr Matt Smith OBE

22 December 2025