Decision

Bargaining Unit Decision

Updated 30 December 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1499(2025)

30 December 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

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.

3)         By a decision dated 29 October 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 parties were invited to supply the Panel with, and to exchange, written submissions relating to the question of the determination of the appropriate bargaining unit.

2. Hearing

4)         A virtual hearing was held on 15 December 2025 and the names of those who attended the hearing are appended to this decision. Both parties provided written submissions prior to the hearing together with supporting documentation. The Panel would like to thank the parties for answering the questions raised during the hearing. The information they provided was very helpful to the Panel.

3. Matters clarified at the beginning of the hearing

Clarification of the Union’s Proposed Bargaining Unit

5)         At the beginning of the hearing the Panel Chair asked for confirmation of the proposed bargaining unit from the parties. The Union stated that although the Employer operated over 5 sites nationally, the Union was seeking recognition for its members at the two sites in Glasgow, who clearly wanted recognition and where it had a strong membership. The Union said its proposed bargaining unit was all workers based at the Glasgow sites excluding senior and company management.

4. Summary of the submissions made by the Union

6)         The Union stated it was seeking statutory recognition for collective bargaining on behalf of a group of workers employed by The Climbing Academy (TCA). Its proposed bargaining unit comprised employees who shared common terms and conditions and operated within a coherent organisational structure. The Union confirmed that at this stage, the job roles identified (not exhaustive) included: Counter Staff, Duty Manager, Instructor, Routesetter, Routesetting Assistant, Front of House Manager, Customer Service Manager, Cleaner, Café Manager, Head Coach, Senior Duty Manager, Bookings Manager, Booking Assistant, Setting and Maintenance, Senior Instructor. The Union proposed that the bargaining unit would cover workers in the roles described above at all Scottish sites operated by the Employer.

7)         The Union said the Employer operated at the following two sites in Scotland: The Newsroom, 124 Portman Street, Glasgow, and The Prop Store, 24 Craigmont Street, Glasgow. The Union stated that the proposed bargaining unit reflected the core operational workforce responsible for delivering customer-facing and instructional services and that these workers shared similar contractual terms, work patterns, and reporting lines, which made the unit appropriate and practical for collective bargaining. The Union confirmed to the Panel that, by obtaining recognition, workers would have a greater say in their terms and conditions and that the process would be more democratic.

8)         The Union confirmed that its membership within the proposed bargaining unit exceeded the 10% threshold required under paragraph 36(1)(a) of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule). The Union stated that this was consistent with the CAC membership report and the Union’s own records. The Union said it believed that a majority of workers in the bargaining unit were likely to favour recognition. The Union stated that this belief was based on:

• A high level of union membership within the bargaining unit.
• High engagement and support during the application process.
• Positive feedback from workers regarding union representation.
• Absence of significant opposition or objections.

9)         The Union stated that the proposed bargaining unit aligned with existing management structures and the workers in the bargaining unit reported to the same operational managers. The Union confirmed that recognition would not disrupt operational efficiency and, on the contrary, would provide opportunities for better communication and negotiation between workers and management. The Union said that having union recognition in place would create a vehicle for TCA workers to hold management to account in ensuring appropriate policies were in place and practiced consistently across the workforce at the two sites. The Union also confirmed that its members at the Scottish sites for which recognition was sought had no active involvement or working relationship with the other sites operated by TCA in England.

10)       The Union said that, as far as its members were concerned, the sites for which recognition was sought operated as standalone entities. The Union also said it understood that TCA aimed to present a case that the proposed bargaining unit was not compatible with effective management, stating in email correspondence with the Union that said “TCA operates as a national organisation with unified terms, policies, and management structures. Establishing a regionally defined bargaining unit would introduce operational inconsistency and duplication and would not reflect the way our business is organised or managed.”

11)       The Union stated that its significant membership within the proposed bargaining unit should not be denied the right to organise within a recognised trade union, due to the Employer’s refusal to take on the appropriate responsibilities for management of these workers. The Union said that it was entirely up to senior management at TCA if they decided it would be more efficient to implement any changes to terms and conditions won by its members across the whole company nationwide, or if they wished to work with separate terms and conditions for the proposed bargaining unit. When asked by the Panel whether health and safety might be compromised if union recognition were granted, as the Employer suggested, the Union submitted that having union recognition made workplaces safer.

12)       The Union stated that, based on member feedback, it had concerns around the consistency of current management practices at TCA and that, in gaining recognition, it would work alongside TCA to help improve policies, procedures, terms and conditions for its members. The Union said that it would aim to simplify these processes to work better and more efficiently for both its members and the Employer. The Union confirmed that it sought recognition for all categories of workers, including full-time, part-time and zero-hours employees, ensuring that all workers would have a greater say.

13)       The Union stated that trade union recognition at TCA would provide the following benefits: improved communication would have been achieved by establishing a structured channel for dialogue between staff and management, reducing misunderstandings and fostering trust; fair and consistent terms would have been enabled through negotiation of clear, equitable policies on pay, hours, and working conditions, addressing current inconsistencies; employee engagement would have been strengthened, as recognition empowered staff, improving morale and retention by giving them a voice in decisions that affected their work and operational stability would have been supported, as collective bargaining reduced the risk of disputes and created a predictable framework for resolving issues.

14)       The Union stated that legal precedent supported its position, citing Paragraph 19B(1) of the Act and CAC precedent in GMB & City Facilities Management (TUR1/1377/2023), which confirmed that smaller regional units could be compatible with effective management. The proposed bargaining unit was fair, coherent, and representative of the workforce most affected by operational decisions. The Union said that while the Employer might have preferred a national unit, its proposal ensured clarity and avoided unnecessary complexity.

15)       The Union confirmed that there were no existing national or local bargaining arrangements covering these workers and that recognition would complement current practices and introduce structured dialogue where none previously existed. The Union stated that many of its members were employed by TCA in multiple different positions at the same time, each position with a different hourly rate of pay and there were workers in the same role on hourly pay, some of whom were on zero-hours contracts, while others were salaried.

16)       The Union said that, given this current overcomplicated state of workplace management, its view was that the appropriate and manageable bargaining unit was one that included all workers in the Scottish sites, excluding senior management. The Union stated that the proposed unit avoided creating small, fragmented bargaining groups.

17)       The Union stated that employees in the proposed bargaining unit shared similar roles, worked under comparable terms, and operated within the same functional area and that other staff, such as senior and company management, had different responsibilities and should not be included. The Union stated that evidence had been provided to the CAC showing a membership level of 60% within the proposed bargaining unit.

18)       Finally, the Union explained that the proposed bargaining unit met all statutory criteria under Paragraph 19B of the Schedule and that it was compatible with effective management, avoided fragmentation, and reflected the characteristics and location of the workforce. The Union therefore requested that the CAC approve the proposed bargaining unit and proceed with statutory recognition.

5. Summary of the submissions made by the Employer

19)       The Employer submitted that the proposed Glasgow-only bargaining unit was not appropriate, as it was both incompatible with effective management of a small but nationally run organisation, and unrepresentative of TCA as a whole. The Employer submitted that the proposed bargaining unit was not representative of its workforce in terms of hours worked, contract types, and management levels. The Employer operated as a single, integrated national organisation, with all sites managed under a unified structure and subject to the same terms and conditions, policies, systems, and governance framework.

20)       The Employer stated that all decisions relating to pay, staffing levels, investment, health and safety, and operational policy were determined nationally and applied consistently across all sites, including Glasgow, Bristol, and Chippenham. The Employer said it operated under a single Board of Directors, who met collectively and travelled regularly between sites to ensure uniform operational oversight, culture, and standards and that no site, including Glasgow, functioned as a separate undertaking. The Employer contended that a Glasgow-only bargaining unit would fracture this unified model, introducing duplication, inconsistency, and operational divergence and it would undermine national financial planning, risk management, and the Employer’s ability to maintain coherent and effective operational control across all sites. When asked by the Panel how a single bargaining unit would impact the company financially, the Employer stated that it would prefer national bargaining rather than a fragmented, bit by bit approach.

21)       The Employer stated that although the Union may claim majority membership by headcount within its proposed Glasgow unit, its members represented only a minority of total hours worked in Glasgow. The Employer confirmed that these members were concentrated in part-time and zero-hours contracts, with no members who are full-time staff. The Employer asserted that the Union had no presence in management tiers at any site, either in Glasgow or elsewhere in the company. The Employer emphasised that, by contrast, many of TCA’s core operational hours and ongoing managerial responsibilities were delivered by full-time and salaried staff who were not Union members. The Employer concluded that, as a result, the proposed bargaining unit did not reflect the overall balance of working time, responsibility, or contractual types within either Glasgow or the wider company. When the Panel asked whether recognition of the bargaining unit in Glasgow could be implemented, the Employer responded that it would require additional time, funding, and resources.

22)       The Employer stated that from the outset, it had engaged with the Union openly and in good faith and that it had facilitated all-staff communications and online presentations open to workers at every site and had stated clearly that if there was genuine support for company-wide [i.e., UK-wide] recognition, at all five sites, it would not oppose that in principle. The Employer asserted that immediately following the final staff meeting, union representatives had confirmed that they did not wish to pursue national recognition and had accepted that they did not have majority support across the company. The Employer concluded that the Union therefore recognised that a national bargaining unit would not have been appropriate on the basis of their current membership.

23)       The Employer stated that its concern was the mirror image of that position and that as a small, nationally managed organisation, it could not have accepted a local bargaining unit confined to Glasgow when any changes negotiated there would inevitably have implications for staff across all sites, including those who were not represented by the Union.  A Glasgow-only unit would risk allowing a localised minority to seek changes affecting the national workforce, leading either to fragmented terms and conditions between regions or to the company having to reject demands that it could not have applied fairly or sustainably to all staff. A bargaining unit confined to Glasgow would, in practical terms, force the Employer to operate as two separate companies, one for Scotland and one for the South West, each requiring its own negotiations, procedures, pay structures, and governance arrangements. This would inevitably result in a duplication of processes and decision-making as well as administrative and financial complexity disproportionate to the size of the organisation; and a loss of consistency and fairness between staff performing identical roles across different sites.

24)       The Employer stated that its position was grounded in the statutory criteria in paragraph 19(3) of the Schedule. It confirmed that, in particular, the evidence in its submission showed that:

• The characteristics and location of workers and the way they were organised were national rather than regional, with identical roles and departments present at each site.
• The views of the Employer and Union differed, but even the Union had accepted that it did not have majority support on a UK-wide basis.
• That there were no existing bargaining arrangements, local or national; and
• Creating a Glasgow-only bargaining unit would run directly counter to the desirability of avoiding small, fragmented bargaining units within an undertaking given TCA’s unified structure, small scale, and tightly integrated national management of finance, operations, HR and safety.

25)       The Employer concluded that for these reasons, it submitted that the appropriate bargaining unit, if any, was the workforce of all UK sites albeit it argued that recognition should not be granted as the Union did not have majority support on a national basis. Further, the Union’s proposed Glasgow-only bargaining unit should be rejected as inappropriate on both representational and effective-management grounds. The Employer remained committed to open communication with staff and had been willing to work constructively with the Union in future, but any form of collective bargaining had to reflect the reality that TCA was a single, nationally operated undertaking.

26)       Maintaining a single national framework had enabled the Employer’s directors to implement changes quickly and consistently across all sites whether changes were necessary to comply with new legislation, to respond to market fluctuations, or address unexpected challenges such as economic downturns or infrastructure failures. Although it had operated nationally, it had remained a small company in both scale and resources: with annual revenue below £5 million and fewer than 55 full-time-equivalent employees, it had depended on centralised management systems and direct director involvement to maintain efficiency, safety, and financial stability. The Employer stated that over more than fifteen years, it had refined shared processes, technologies, and practices that had allowed a small national organisation to operate effectively within tight margins.

27)       The Employer asserted that introducing localised bargaining or region-specific management structures would impose administrative and financial burdens that were disproportionate to the size and capacity of the business. The Employer stated that, for a company of its scale, maintaining a single national framework for pay, terms, and communication had been essential to sustain consistency, control costs, and retain the flexibility to act swiftly in the best interests of workers and customers; regional fragmentation would have reversed many of the efficiencies achieved through years of investment in unified systems and leadership oversight.

28)       The Employer recognised and fully respected every worker’s right to join a trade union, but to the best of its knowledge, based on information reasonably available through day-to-day management contact, union membership within the proposed Glasgow bargaining unit had been concentrated primarily among part-time and zero-hours employees who together represented only a minority of total contracted working hours at the site.  The Employer asserted that while the Union may have claimed a numerical majority by headcount, this did not reflect the balance of working time or operational contribution, as many of its core operational hours were delivered by salaried and full-time employees who were not Union members.

29)       The Employer confirmed that the Union had no representation in Company Management, Senior Management, or Management levels within either Glasgow or the wider company and that representation had been limited to Senior Staff and Staff, underscoring that the proposed unit did not reflect the breadth of operational and supervisory responsibility within the workforce.

30)       The Employer concluded that accordingly, its position was that the appropriate bargaining unit was the entire UK workforce of The Climbing Academy Group Ltd., covering all sites. The Glasgow-only bargaining unit proposed by the Union was not appropriate, as it was not representative and was incompatible with effective management. If the CAC determined that Glasgow might be considered in isolation, the unit should include all Glasgow-based staff, including the roles of Digital Marketing Manager, Head Setter, and Cleaner/Setter which were omitted from the Union’s proposed unit but fell squarely within the same organisational tiers, shared identical national terms and conditions, and carried responsibilities equivalent to those of the roles the Union had sought to include.  Their pay, duties, and contractual frameworks matched those of workers the Union proposed to cover and to exclude these roles would result in unequal treatment of workers performing the same functions within the same centres and would introduce further fragmentation within a workforce that had been structured, trained, and managed as a single national entity.

6. Considerations

31)       The Panel begins with the statutory framework. The Panel is required, by paragraph 19(2) of the Schedule, to decide whether the 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. Paragraph 19B (1) and (2) state that, in making those decisions, the Panel must take into account the need for the unit to be compatible with effective management and 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: the views of the employer and the union; existing national and local bargaining arrangements; the desirability of avoiding small, fragmented bargaining units within an undertaking; 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 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. 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.” The Panel’s decision has been taken after a full and detailed consideration of the views of both parties as expressed in their written and oral submissions. Both parties confirmed at the conclusion of the hearing that the hearing had been conducted fairly and that they had had the opportunity to say everything that they had wanted to say to the Panel.

32)       The Panel’s first responsibility is to decide, in accordance with paragraph 19(2) of the Schedule, whether the Union’s proposed bargaining unit is appropriate. That does not require the Panel to determine whether it is the most appropriate bargaining unit; only whether it is appropriate. This is the overriding requirement under 19B (2) and relates principally to the matters to be collectively bargained for under the statutory regime namely pay, hours and holidays. The requirement is that the proposed bargaining unit would be compatible with effective management, not that it be compatible with the most effective management. 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.

33)       The Panel finds in the circumstances that the bargaining unit proposed by the Union is compatible with effective management. The Panel’s reasons are as follows:

(a) the roles in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit are all situated in one city at two sites namely, The Newsroom, 124 Portman Street, Kinning Park, Glasgow, G41 1EJ and The Prop Store, 24 Craigmont Street, Maryhill, Glasgow, G20 9BT.

(b) all of the workers in each of the roles in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit are subject to the same contracts of employment for that role.

(c) Centrally based Operations Directors have responsibility for setting the terms and conditions of staff in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit.

34)       As part of those deliberations the Panel considered those matters at 19(B)(2)(b) not dealt with above as follows:

(a) The views of the employer and union were fully considered. The suggestion by the Employer during the course of the hearing that recognition could be across all sites comprising one group of employees was not further explored by the parties. More members had not joined the GMB as a result of the approach so the union was understandably reluctant to widen the bargaining unit accordingly. That would likely result in their application being rejected.

(b) There are no current national or local bargaining arrangements.

(c) The Union’s proposal is for one bargaining unit in a single area, Glasgow, whereas the Employer’s proposal is for a national bargaining unit at all five UK sites. The Union’s proposal avoided small, fragmented bargaining units in that the bargaining unit is clearly defined and has an obvious boundary.

35)       The Panel appreciates that the Employer has genuine concerns about issues such as health and safety and safeguarding and the potential risks to the business which might result. Also, about the extra management time that recognition, if granted, would inevitably entail. In relation to health and safety however, trade unions are generally concerned to improve health and safety standards, not undermine them. The same is likely to be true of safeguarding.

36)       The Panel appreciates that if recognition is granted, this will lead to some management time having to be spent on collective bargaining, which is not currently necessary. However, that is inevitable when there is no national collective negotiations at present with the existing workforce. Whilst there are opportunities for staff representation, there is no existing staff forum for negotiations on pay, for example. The Panel’s view is that this extra management time would arise from the granting of recognition at any of the sites, whether just for one site in one location, the two sites in Glasgow, or on a national basis. Parliament must have appreciated, when passing these laws, that it would be likely to result in extra management time being spent on collective bargaining in such circumstances.

37)       The Panel also appreciates the fact that the Employer would like to maintain the same terms and conditions, such as hourly rates, for each specific role, on a national basis. It is noted that this is likely to be its position in any negotiations with the Union, were recognition to result. However, Parliament has given workers and trade unions the right to make an application for recognition, through the statutory recognition process. Where the union is subsequently recognised, there is a right for union members, through the recognised trade union, to negotiate with management about pay, hours and holidays. The result of any such negotiations may still result in consistent terms and conditions being applied nationally, rather than different terms being agreed for those working at the two sites in Glasgow. However, that is not a reason why negotiations for this group of workers should not be allowed to take place in principle.

7. Decision

38)       The Panel’s decision is that the appropriate bargaining unit is that as proposed by the Union, namely, “All workers based at the Glasgow site excluding senior and company management”. The proposed bargaining unit is that as proposed by the Union although the definition has been simplified by the Panel to ensure clarity. For the reasons set out above, the Panel is satisfied that the proposed bargaining unit is compatible with effective management.

Panel

Mr Andrew James, Panel Chair

Mr Joe Corcos

Mr Ian Hanson QPM

30 December 2025

8. Appendix

Names of those who attended the hearing

For the Union

Robert Deavy                          -           GMB Scotland Regional Organiser

Adam Todd                               -           GMB Scotland Administration Assistant

For the Employer

Rob Sutton                              -           Operations Manager

Rich Emerson                         -           CEO