Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 29 October 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1499(2025)

29 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

THE CLIMBING ACADEMY

1. Introduction

1)         GMB (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 2 October 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by THE CLIMBING ACADEMY (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising of “Counter Staff, Duty Manager, Instructor, Routesetter, Routesetting Assistant, Front of House Manager, Customer Service Manager, Cleaner, Cafe Manager, Head Coach, Senior Duty Manager, Bookings Manager, Booking Assistant, Setting and Maintenance, Senior Instructor” based at The Newsroom, 124 Portman Street, Kinning Park, Glasgow, G41 1EJ and The Prop Store, 24 Craigmont Street, Maryhill, Glasgow, G20 9BT. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 2 October 2025. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 8 October 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 Andrew James, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Joe Corcos and Mr Ian Hanson. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kaniza Bibi.

2. Issues

3)         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 should be accepted because it is valid within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9, made in accordance with paragraphs 11 or 12 and admissible within the terms of paragraphs 33 to 42 of the Schedule.

4)         The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 16 October 2025. The period was extended until 6 November 2025 in order to allow time for the Panel to consider all the evidence and reach a decision.

3. The Union’s application

5)         In its application the Union said that it had written to the Employer with a formal request for recognition on 8 May 2025. The Union confirmed that both parties had been in talks since then using Acas as a conciliator and trying to find a resolution and a way to have a voluntary recognition agreement. The Union confirmed that the Employer responded on 29 September 2025 confirming it could not support voluntary recognition. Correspondence from both the Union and the Employer were attached to the application.

6)         The Union was asked if this was a joint application and to provide any available evidence that the unions concerned would cooperate with each other and enter into single-table bargaining arrangements, the Union responded by stating that this was a GMB only application. The Union stated that, following receipt of the request for recognition, the Employer had proposed that Acas should be requested to assist the parties, and the Union had agreed to this.

7)         According to the Union, the Employer employed 46 workers with 40 of these falling within the proposed bargaining unit. The Union stated that it had 21 members within the proposed bargaining unit. 

8)         When asked to provide evidence that the majority of the workers in the bargaining unit were likely to support recognition for collective bargaining, the Union stated that there has been significant and sustained growth in union membership among workers at The Climbing Academy’s Glasgow sites. The Union confirmed that when organising efforts commenced, there were no union members and through ongoing engagement, workplace discussions, and support from the Union, membership had now increased to exceed 50% of the proposed bargaining unit across both Glasgow sites. The Union said this level of membership density provided a clear and credible indication that a majority of workers supported union recognition for the purposes of collective bargaining.

9)         When asked to give its reasons for selecting the proposed bargaining unit, the Union stated it was selected on the basis of shared terms and conditions, common workplace functions, and a clear community of interest among the workers. The Union said the unit is comprised of those employed by The Climbing Academy at the two sites, who worked under similar contractual arrangements and performed related roles within the same operational structure. The Union commented that this group was distinct in terms of employer, location, and job function, making it a coherent and appropriate unit for collective bargaining and the workers had expressed a desire for recognition.

10)       The Union confirmed that the bargaining unit had not been agreed with the Employer. When asked whether there was any existing recognition agreement covering any of the workers within the bargaining unit, the Union stated that there was not.

11)       Finally, the Union said there had been no previous application in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit and there was no existing recognition agreement that covered any of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

4. The Employer’s response to the application

12)       In its response to the Union’s application the Employer stated that it had received the Union’s written request for recognition on 12 September 2025. It had declined the Union’s request in an email dated 29 September 2025, stating that after careful consideration and having reviewed the bargaining unit definition, it regretted to inform the Union that it declined their request for voluntary recognition. The Employer said the reason for its decision was that it believed formal recognition was not necessary, as existing structures were already providing adequate representation and dialogue. The Employer confirmed it had well-established systems of communication with its employees and with the Union and these channels of communication had been, and continued to be, effective in addressing employee concerns and provided a mechanism for input and feedback. The Employer stated it respected the Union’s right to support its members and indicated that it would continue to engage with the Union as needed. The Employer stated that should the Union wish to seek statutory recognition with the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC), it should inform them as soon as possible of the application and provide a copy of the application and any supporting documents.

13)       The Employer said that it had received a copy of the application form from the Union on 2 October 2025. The Employer, when asked if it had agreed the bargaining unit with the Union before it had received a copy of the application form from the Union, stated “NO”.

14)       The Employer considered that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was not an appropriate bargaining unit and confirmed its objections to the proposed unit, by stating that the proposed Glasgow-only bargaining unit was not compatible with effective management. The Employer confirmed it operated nationally with one set of terms, policies, and management structures and a regional unit would have created inconsistency and duplication.

15)     When asked if, following receipt of the Union’s request, the Employer had proposed that Acas be requested to assist, the Employer responded affirmatively. The Employer provided details of contact with Acas as follows: Online meetings were held with Acas and the GMB on 11 July, 29 August, and 23 September 2025. The Employer said it’s concern throughout had been the appropriateness of the proposed Glasgow-only bargaining unit and also that it had facilitated opportunities for the Union to engage with employees, including providing online access to staff across all sites. Ultimately, the Employer informed Acas on 29 September 2025 that it could not support voluntary recognition for Scotland alone.

16)       When asked to state the number of workers employed, the Employer confirmed there were 124 workers as of 8 October 2025, including 2 staff who were working their notice.

17)       The Employer was asked whether it agreed with the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application and answered by saying no. On being asked about the reasons for the difference, the Employer stated that it defined the bargaining unit as any staff member working in Glasgow who was not part of full management, totalling 45 employees as of 8 October 2025. The Employer also stated that the 45 roles listed within the Unions application, included the following roles: Regional Operations Manager, Instructing Manager, Digital Marketing Manager, Head Setter, and Cleaner/Setter. The Employer said that the bargaining unit would not include Directors or Head of Marketing due to their running of company-wide management roles.

18)       The Employer said there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit. When asked if it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer stated: “The Union has claimed 21 members in the proposed unit. We do not necessarily accept that this remains the case, as the workforce is fluid and some staff have since left or changed roles. The Union has provided no supporting evidence of current membership”.

19)       When invited 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 stated: “We do not believe a majority of workers in the proposed bargaining unit are likely to support recognition. There has been no evident demand or “clamour” for union recognition within TCA. The Glasgow sites are part of a stable, settled, and well-engaged workforce with established channels for communication and feedback. No recent disputes or issues have been raised that would indicate a desire for collective bargaining. Based on the figures available, support is likely to be below 50%”.

20)       Finally, the Employer stated “n/a” when asked if it was aware of any previous application under the Schedule for statutory recognition by the Union in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit. Asked whether it had received any other applications under the Schedule for recognition in respect of any of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit the Employer answered “n/a”.

5. The membership and support check        

21)       To assist 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 and support within the proposed bargaining unit. 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 full names and dates of birth, and a copy of the petition in support of recognition it mentioned in its application. It was explicitly agreed with both parties that, to preserve confidentiality, the names of the employees and members within the bargaining unit and the petition signatories would not be copied to the other party and that agreement was confirmed in a letter dated 14 October 2025 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

22)       The information from the Union and Employer was received by the CAC on 21 October 2025.

23)       The list supplied by the Employer contained the names of 45 workers. The Employer identified five individuals who, they explained, had been included on the basis that the Union’s list was described as “not exhaustive,” and that these individuals formed part of the intended bargaining unit. These five names were not subject to checking for the purposes of the report. Accordingly, the number of workers on the Employer’s list used for the check was therefore 40. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 24 names. The Case Manager’s report confirms that the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 24, a membership level of 60.00%. 

24)       The Case Manager’s report was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 23 October 2025 and the parties’ comments invited.

6. Parties’ comments on the membership and support check

25)       In an email dated 28 October 2025 the Union stated “GMB confirms that our records indicate union membership within the proposed bargaining unit exceeds the 10% threshold required under paragraph 36(1)(a). This is consistent with the figures presented in the CAC’s membership report, and we are satisfied that the test has been met. GMB believes that a majority of workers in the bargaining unit are likely to favour recognition of the union for collective bargaining purposes. This belief is based on:

• The level of engagement and support shown by members during the application process.

• Positive feedback from workers regarding union representation.

• The absence of any significant opposition or objections raised during the initial stages of the process.

We therefore submit that both statutory tests under paragraph 36 have been satisfied, and we welcome the CAC’s consideration of this application.”

26)       In an email dated 27 October 2025 the Employer stated, “We believe that the list provided by the GMB does not include all eligible staff within the proposed bargaining unit. The GMB indicated that their list of roles was not exhaustive and as such, several employees who should fall within scope were omitted from the union’s list. This omission affects the calculation of union density and does not accurately reflect the true level of support across our workforce”. The Employer went on to make submissions regarding the appropriateness of the proposed bargaining unit. These submissions are not set out in detail here, as they are not relevant to the tests under consideration at this stage.

7. Considerations

27)       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 carefully considered the submissions of both parties and all the evidence in reaching its decision. 

28)       From the information set out above, 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 12. Furthermore, the Panel is satisfied that the application is not rendered inadmissible by any of the provisions in paragraphs 33 to 35 and 37 to 42 of the Schedule. The remaining issues for the Panel to decide are whether the admissibility criteria contained in paragraph 36(1)(a) and paragraph 36(1)(b) are met. 

Paragraph 36(1)(a)

29)       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 Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The membership check conducted by the Case Manager described in paragraph 23 above showed that 60.00% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the arrangements agreed with the parties. The Panel has therefore 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)

30)       Under paragraph 36(1)(b) 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.

31)       The Panel notes from the membership check that the majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit (60.00%) are members of the Union. In the absence of clear and cogent evidence to the contrary, the Panel is entitled to assume that members of the Union would be likely to favour recognition of the Union to conduct collective bargaining with the Employer on their behalf. 

32)       On the evidence before it, the Panel has decided that 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 and accordingly, this test is also met.

8. Decision

33)       For the reasons given above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Mr Andrew James, Panel Chair

Mr Joe Corcos

Mr Ian Hanson QPM

28 October 2025