Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 7 October 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1492(2025)

6 October 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 Pharmacy

1. Introduction

1)         GMB (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 19 August 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Lindsay & Gilmour Pharmacy (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “Pharmacy Dispensers, Pharmacy Technicians and all associated trainees.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “Lindsay and Gilmour Pharmacy branches: Elm Row – 11 Elm Row, Edinburgh, EH7 4AA and Leith Walk: 257a Leith Walk, Edinburgh, EH6 8NY.” The application was received by the CAC on 8 September 2025, and the CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 8 September 2025. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 11 September 2025 which was copied to the Union.

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

3)          The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 22 September 2025. The acceptance period was extended to 31 October 2025 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

4)         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

5)         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 declined the recognition request. The Union attached a copy of its request dated 20 August 2025 and the Employer’s response dated 21 August 2025.

6)        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 “None.” 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.

7)         The Union stated that the total number of workers employed by the Employer was estimated to be less than ten across the two stores named in the Union’s application form. The Union stated that there were six workers in the proposed bargaining unit and that the Employer disagreed 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 answered, “four. Two at the Elm Row store (one Dispenser and one Trainee Dispenser) and two at the Leith Walk store (one Dispenser and one Technician). The Union said 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 surveyed our members in the bargaining unit as follows: Elm Row Store – 100% of Dispensers (2). Leith Walk Store – 50% of Dispensers (1), 100% of Technicians (1). All four surveyed voted in favour of the company recognising GMB as per our survey (attached with the application).”

8)         The Union stated that the reason for selecting the proposed bargaining unit was “these are the groups of workers we have become aware of through GMB membership. We believe there are two pharmacy dispensers in each shop and one technician in each shop.” 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.”

9)         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 8 September 2025.

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

10)       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 to the request on 21 August 2025 declining the Union’s request for voluntary recognition.

11)       The Employer confirmed that it had received a copy of the Union’s application form from the Union on 8 September 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 bargaining unit. The Employer explained that the figures provided by the Union on its application form were incorrect. The Employer said “The staffing levels in relation to the proposed bargaining unit are as follows: Elm Row - 3 Dispensers, 2 Trainee Dispensers. Leith Walk- 2 Dispensers, 3 Trainee Dispensers and 1 Pharmacy Technician.” The Employer said it had 353 employees and that it did not agree with the number of workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The Employer said that there were 11 workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

12)       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 answered, “Based on the current staffing levels, the declared percentage of those balloted and declared support is incorrect. With the proposed bargaining unit in Elm Row being a total of 5 workers, only 40% have been balloted (not 100% as stated). In Leith Walk, it is correct that 100% of Pharmacy Technicians have been balloted but only 20% of dispensers have been balloted and not 50% as stated. With the bargaining unit consisting of 6 workers and 2 voting in favour, this means that only 33% of the proposed bargaining unit is in favour. Therefore, we do not accept that the majority of workers in the bargaining unit are in favour of trade union recognition.”

13)       The Employer answered “Not Applicable” when asked if it was aware of any previous application under the Schedule by the Union in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit and whether it had received any other applications under Schedule A1 for statutory recognition in respect of any workers in the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer said that it consented to its contact details being forwarded to Acas.

5. Union’s comments on the Employer’s response document

14)       In a letter dated 16 September 2025 the Union said “we would be estimating the figures in the bargaining unit based on discussions with our members, the employer has denied the recognition request outright and has not engaged with us, unfortunately. I had previously requested a point of contact to discuss recognition, and we had requested to review the job titles in our original letter. These would have been good opportunities to discuss the bargaining units and agree the figures, but the employer did not engage with us on either occasion. We do not believe that only 33% of workers in the bargaining unit are in favour of recognition in the Leith Walk Store as clearly our survey was not wide enough and has only reached 33% of the workers according to the figures provided by the employer. All those surveyed responded in favour. We are more than happy to survey again with a view to reaching all of the bargaining unit. I am not sure what the reason for the discrepancy in worker numbers is, but we are happy to engage with the workforce in the stores in good faith.”

6. The membership and support check

15)       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 the results of a survey 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 survey results. 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 17 September 2025 from the Case Manager to both parties.

16)       The information requested from the Employer was received by the CAC on 19 September 2025 and from the Union on 23 September 2025. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.   

17)       The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 11 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The Employer listed the following roles: Trainee Dispenser, Dispenser and Technician.

18)       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%.

19)       The Union also provided the results of a survey in the form of a spreadsheet which consisted of four entries. The columns at the top were headed: “ID”, “Start Time”, “Completion Time”, “Email”, “Name”, “Last Modified Time”, “Membership Number” and “Are you in favour of Lindsay & Gilmour recognising GMB Scotland?” Of the four entries all four answered yes to the question “are you in favour of Lindsay & Gilmour recognising GMB Scotland?” The columns with ‘name’ and ‘last modified time’ were left blank. The ‘Email’ for each entry was given as anonymous.

20)       The check of the survey showed that it had been completed by four workers in the proposed bargaining unit, a figure which represented 36.36% of the proposed bargaining unit. All four of those that had completed the survey were members of the Union (36.36%). The survey was not circulated to non-union members in the proposed bargaining unit. A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 23 September 2025 and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by noon on 29 September 2025.

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

21)       In a letter dated 26 September 2025 the Employer said “In line with our original response to the Application, I can confirm that: A) The figures provided in the Application from the GMB are incorrect. The staffing levels in relation to the proposed bargaining unit are as follows: Elm Row - 3 Dispensers and 2 Trainee Dispensers Total: 5 employees. Leith Walk - 2 Dispensers, 3 Trainee Dispensers and 1 Pharmacy Technician Total: 6 employees. The total bargaining unit is therefore 11 employees, of which 4 are members of the GMB (as per the application). On this basis, 36.36% of the bargaining unit are members of the GMB. B) Based on the current staffing levels, the declared percentage of those balloted and declared support is incorrect. With the proposed bargaining unit being 11 employees, and 4 of them voting in favour of recognition, this is a total of 36.36%. Therefore, we do not accept that the majority of workers in the bargaining unit are in favour of trade union recognition.”

22)       In an e mail dated 26 September the Union said that it believed that the amount of workers in the bargaining unit had reduced by one since the report had been compiled. The Union said that the paragraph regarding the survey in the report was “perhaps a little misleading, the spreadsheet is generated by Microsoft Forms following electronic engagement with members, as only the question about recognition was asked in the survey and not names, the fields are blank in the spreadsheet.” The Union said that it was confident “that the required minimum of 50% of workers would vote in favour of union recognition if a further petition was carried out” and that it would be happy to petition non - members if the Employer gave them the opportunity. The Union said it did not feel that it had had this opportunity yet.

8. Considerations

23)       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. 

24)       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)

25)       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. 

26)       The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 15 to 20 above) showed that 36.36% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 15 above, the Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

27)       For the reasons set out in paragraph 26 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)

28)       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.

29)       To support its case the Union relied on its membership which, as stated previously, stood at 36.36% of the workers in the bargaining unit. It also relied on a survey expressing the desire of the workers that the Union be recognised, which was completed by the same percentage, 36.36%, of the proposed bargaining unit. All four union members identified as being in the proposed bargaining unit had completed the survey, that is 36.36% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit. Only members of the union were provided with the link to the survey. The Panel has been presented with no information from the Union on whether the remaining workers in the bargaining unit who are not union members would support the Union in its application for statutory recognition.

30)       Whilst there is no strict arithmetical test for “likely support”, the Panel is concerned that this figure is significantly short of a majority of the bargaining unit. Although the level of Union membership is 36.36% of the proposed bargaining unit, that in itself may be insufficient as a criterion of likely support, in the absence of some reasonably persuasive petition evidence.

31)       The Union explained that it could carry out a petition of the workers in the bargaining unit were it to be given the opportunity however the time for a union to put forward evidence of likely support for recognition is before rather than after a Case Manager’s membership and support report. Inevitably, in order to consider this test, the Panel has to take a snapshot of the level of union membership and support for recognition at a particular point in time.

32)       Having considered the parties’ submissions the Panel finds that there is insufficient evidence to persuade it that a majority of 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. In the absence of such, the Panel concludes that the statutory test has not been met.

9. Decision

33)       The application is valid within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9, was made in accordance with paragraph 11 and is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 33 to 42 of Schedule A1  to the Act (the Schedule). However, the Panel is not satisfied that a majority of workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf, as required by paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule. Accordingly, the decision of the Panel is that the application is not accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Mr Jonathan Gray, Panel Chair

Mr Joseph Corcos

Dr Steve Jary

6 October 2025