Bargaining Unit Decision
Updated 20 May 2025
Applies to England, Scotland and Wales
© Crown copyright 2025
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cac-outcome-gmb-the-montefiore-hospital/bargaining-unit-decision
Case Number: TUR1/1441(2024)
20 May 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 Montefiore Hospital
1. Introduction
1) GMB (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 21 November 2024 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by The Montefiore Hospital (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising the “Health Care Assistances, Sterile Service Technicians, Operating Department Practitioners and Nursing staff up to and including Senior and Sister level excluding Senior Managers who work at The Montefiore Hospital” based at Montefiore Hospital, 2 Montefiore Road, Hove, East Sussex, BN3 1RD. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 22 November 2024. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 6 December 2024 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 Ms Naeema Choudry, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Sean McIlveen and Mr Nicholas Childs. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kaniza Bibi and, for the purposes of this decision, Nigel Cookson.
3) By a decision dated 7 February 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. A bargaining unit hearing was held by virtual means on 30 April 2025 and the names of those who attended the hearing are appended to this decision.
4) The Panel is required, by paragraph 19(2) of Schedule A1 to the Act (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: (1) the views of the employer and the union; (2) existing national and local bargaining arrangements; (3) the desirability of avoiding small, fragmented bargaining units within an undertaking; (4) 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 (5) 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.
2. Summary of the submissions made by the Union
5) The Union detailed the attempts it made to reach a voluntary agreement with the Employer but stated that no meaningful dialogue had taken place. The Employer had put forward an alternative bargaining unit, but this had not been agreed because the term ‘all clinical staff’ was not defined and could be understood to include doctors and/or consultants.
6) The Union believed that the roles of Health Care Assistances, Sterile Service technicians, Operating Department Practitioners and Nursing staff up to and including Senior and Sister level excluding Senior Managers who worked at The Montefiore Hospital, in Theatres, Wards, Day Care units, Sterile Services departments would be reasonable to manage by the Employer. It would then be for the Employer to decide, if by proxy, any collective bargaining agreement would also be of value to other roles and departments beyond the scope of the bargaining unit. The bargaining unit had been identified by its membership and the Union was not privy to or been offered information to give any rationale of additional roles or job titles that the Employer had that would be amiss from the proposed bargaining unit.
7) The Union had not seen any evidence of an impact to effective management for the proposed bargaining unit and how this was not aligned with existing structures arguing that the Employer managed each element separately in any event. The Employer had merely suggested an alternative bargaining unit encompassing all clinical staff based below senior management level and again to possibly include doctors and/or consultants. The Employer had opted not to give clear definitions of the roles that it wished to be included beyond outlining this proposal on 13 March 2025.
8) The Union submitted that its proposed bargaining unit was a clear unit as evidenced by the composition of the Employer’s staff forum. The Employer had identified categories of roles in this forum and the Union’s bargaining unit fell within this structure and so, contrary to the Employer’s assertion, was an appropriate unit. It was a natural grouping of workers in health services as can be shown by how various professional bodies covered those workers within the proposed bargaining unit whereas different bodies covered those outside such as doctors. Further, in the NHS defined groups such as here were represented by different trade unions.
9) The density of union membership did play a part in the Union’s formulation of the propose bargaining unit but, nonetheless, it was a clearly defined bargaining unit in both private and public healthcare situations. The Employer referred to a shared element within each department but it was clear, for example, as to their specific roles - there was no expectation, for example, that a porter would carry out the role of a doctor. The rules were very clear on this and each worker’s contract would set out their specific role and function.
10) The Union argued that the management structure within the hospital itself instilled an element of fragmentation. Within any organisational structure it would be for the Employer to decide whether it extended any changes in terms and conditions achieved through collective bargaining to workers outside the bargaining unit. The argument of fragmentation suggested by the Employer was not evidenced in its response to the application where it focused on thresholds and momentum of growth of membership rather than fragmentation.
11) The Union questioned a number of points the Employer had made in its written submissions. It queried why rates of pay were not disclosed by the Employer in its bundle of documents. It also questioned the basis for the Employer’s claim that its proposed bargaining unit of all clinical staff was appropriate. The Employer had also stated that it treated clinical staff as one unit but had offered no explanation in support of this contention as job roles, pay and responsibilities were clearly all different. The Employer also referred to an overlap in role functions between clinical staff but the Union questioned whether this was truly the case and whether it was even safe or legal. In the Union’s view, the Employer’s examples of such interactions were more to do with movement of staff rather than a change in actual role.
12) In the sample contract provided by the Employer the Union was unable to locate salary bands or gradings. The Union explained that it would need this information to conduct collective bargaining. The Union also questioned why only one contract of a worker in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit had been included in the Employer’s bundle whereas a number of offer letters for those outside of the proposed bargaining unit had been provided. The Union also queried whether non-clinical workers were engaged on the same standard contract as the clinical workers.
13) The Union considered the Employer’s point about roles being indistinguishable to be factually inaccurate. There were a number of specific professional bodies and trade unions covering most of these roles, so clearly they were discrete. These trade unions had a high population from these professions, for example, the radiographers and imaging staff would be covered by the Society of Radiographers which represented 90% of all diagnostic staff. The British Medical Association represented 80% of all resident doctors in the UK and over 67% of registered pharmacists were represented by the Pharmacists’ Defence Association. These groups were separate professions hence having separate ring-fenced trade unions.
14) In response to a question from the Panel as to the exclusion of some junior level roles that would not be represented by separate profession unions, the Union explained that if negotiations had taken place previously, their positions may have been a consideration for inclusion but it was not privy to the exact details until it had sight of the Employer’s submissions. The Union added that it would be happy to engage with these workers in the future.
15) Asked by the Panel if the Union could give any examples of private hospitals where a bargaining unit as proposed was recognised the Union said that it could give no example but even so, this should have no bearing on its proposed bargaining unit. It did, however, point out that the NHS Agenda for Change covered all representative bodies.
16) Commenting on the Employer’s oral submissions the Union explained that it was making the point that if the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was deemed appropriate, then it would be for the Employer to decide whether it rolled out any changes in terms and conditions secured through collective bargaining to those workers outside the bargaining unit.
17) In conclusion, the Union believed that its proposed bargaining unit was a clearly defined bargaining unit, it would not lead to fragmentation, and it would allow the Union to represent its members in a coherent way and it urged the Panel to find in its favour.
3. Summary of the submissions made by the Employer
18) The Employer submitted that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was inappropriate and not compatible with effective management. It raised issues of fragmentation and because it excluded a significant number of other clinical staff at the hospital working in the same place of work and engaged in broadly similar functions and roles on identical terms and conditions, it was not an appropriate unit.
19) The proposed bargaining unit appeared to have been shaped by the density of union membership in the particular roles selected and did not comprise an identifiable or self-contained unit. It was likely to create division on an arbitrary basis. An appropriate bargaining unit would be all clinical staff excluding senior managers.
20) The Union’s proposed bargaining unit comprised: TSSU Assistants, Sterile Services Technicians, Senior Healthcare Assistants and Healthcare Assistants, Oncology and outpatient Healthcare Assistants, Perioperative Practitioner, Endoscopy Manager and Endoscopy Lead Nurse, Interim Orthopaedic Team Lead, Orthopaedic Lead, Orthopaedic Sister, General Surgery Lead, Theatre Co-Ordinator, Theatre Practitioners, Surgical First Assistant, Recovery Nurse, Theatre scrub practitioners, Operating Department Practitioner, Senior Staff Nurses, Outpatient Staff nurses and Pre-Op assessment nurses. These roles were clearly of differing seniorities, for example, those in team lead roles.
21) The total number of clinical staff excluded from the unit was 52 staff in the following roles: Physiotherapists; Lead Physiotherapists; Radiographers; Lead Radiographers; Pharmacy staff (Pharmacy manager, Pharmacist, Technician, Assistant); Oncology staff (Manager, Day unit manager, Oncological pharmacist); Resident doctors and Medical Officer; Out-patient manager; Theatre Manager; Laboratory Assistants; Diagnostic Imaging Manager; and Pre-assessment team lead. Again, these roles were clearly of differing seniorities, for example, those in team lead roles.
22) It was clear that workers in particular areas were included in both sets of clinical staff, for example, those working in relation to Theatres, Oncology staff, Outpatient staff and Ward staff were included in both the proposed bargaining unit and in the list of clinical staff excluded from that proposed unit. Team lead staff were similarly included in each group. There was no apparent basis for the inclusion of some and the exclusion of others. Moreover, all clinical staff were treated as one unit and worked together in an interdisciplinary and inter-related basis and with overlap of functions and were engaged in providing cover for other areas of clinical practice both inside and outside the proposed bargaining unit.
23) All clinical staff reported into the Director of Clinical Services. Staff working in Theatres, Sterile Services, Diagnostics Pharmacy and Physiotherapy also reported to the Director of Clinical Services. Staff working in Wards and daycare, Outpatients, Pre-operative assessments, Resident doctors and Oncology reported to the Deputy Director of Clinical Services and then to the Director of Clinical Services. The Clinical Team reported into a team leader and/or a Head of Department who then reported to the Director of Clinical Services or the Deputy Director. Clinical staff within the proposed bargaining unit and those outside had direct reporting lines and management into the same managers and operated under the same organisational structure. They were all subject to the same managerial structure and were organised as a specific group as a matter of organisation and management.
24) As the Clinical staff worked as a team, the roles were interrelated and there was overlap in role functions, for example, Diagnostic Imaging staff worked in theatres when required and Theatre staff assisted in provision of daycare occasionally, when a need arose.
25) The Hospital had standard form contracts which applied to all clinical staff and all were employed on common terms and conditions of employment. Salary bands were set in accordance with the Hospital’s Reward Framework with core salaries for particular roles. Copies of the Reward Framework document and Job Framework were included in the Employer’s bundle. Every role had a job family and discipline, and every individual knew where they sat in the framework. In fixing job grades and salary there was an extensive review of job grades conducted which took into account multiple considerations including role requirements, current internal salaries, affordability and the external market.
26) As for pay, hours and holidays, all clinical staff were subject to the same terms and conditions relating to these matters. In addition, standard terms relating to: Place of work; Pension; Private Medical cover; Absence Procedures; Termination Provisions; Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures; Suspension; Post Termination Restrictions; Data Protection, Confidentiality and Intellectual Property and Company Property applied not only to clinical staff within the proposed bargaining unit but they also applied to the clinical staff presently excluded from the proposed bargaining unit who were on precisely the same terms and conditions as to: Location; Pay and with contractual provision for annual review; Hours of work (37.5 hours full time); and Holidays. They were also subject to the same terms and conditions as to Pension, Private Medical cover, Absence Procedures, Termination Provisions, Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures, Suspension, Post Termination Restrictions, Data Protection, Confidentiality and Intellectual Property and Company Property that applied to clinical staff within the proposed bargaining unit. Policies and Procedures such as the Eye Test Policy, Parental Leave Policy, Time Off in Lieu Policy, Adoption Leave Policy, Annual Leave Policy, Maternity Policy, Other Time Off Policy, Paternity Leave Policy and Sickness Absence Policy applied uniformly to all of the clinical staff included those currently excluded.
27) As part of the process of testing whether the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was indeed appropriate, the CAC must consider any alternatives suggested by the Employer. In deciding the question of appropriateness, the CAC must have general regard to the object of encouraging and promoting fair and efficient practices and arrangements in the workplace. In considering the bargaining unit, the CAC was specifically directed to attach paramount importance to the need to make it compatible with the effective management of the undertaking. ‘Compatible’ meaning ‘consistent with’ or ‘able to co-exist with’.
28) As to the views of the Union, it appeared that the Union’s reasons for selecting the proposed bargaining unit was based on the density of union membership within that proposed grouping, but union density was not a factor to be taken into account in assessing the viability of a bargaining unit.
29) An appropriate bargaining unit would include all clinical staff at the hospital. Moreover, the exclusion of these other staff was clear evidence that the proposed unit was inappropriate for the following reasons: all clinical staff worked together to provide integrated patient care; all clinical staff worked at the same location; all clinical staff were organised as a clinical unit with reporting lines ultimately to the Director of Clinical Services; and all clinical staff were employed on the same standard contractual terms. As to the core topics of pay hours and holiday, all clinical staff were employed on precisely the same terms and conditions in regard to these matters.
30) The Union’s proposed bargaining unit did not identify a self-contained or identifiable unit and lacked any logical distinction between those included in the proposed unit and those excluded. If adopted, it would exclude clinical colleagues working alongside those within the bargaining unit and would even exclude clinical staff working in the same areas of clinical practice on an arbitrary basis from the bargaining unit. For example, particular anomalies that would arise were that Oncology and outpatient Healthcare Assistants were included but other Oncology staff i.e. Oncology Manager, Day unit manager, Oncological pharmacist were excluded. Some theatre staff were included but the Theatre Manager excluded. Some outpatient staff were included but the outpatients manager was excluded. A number of Lead staff were included in the proposed unit, but other Lead staff were excluded. None of these exclusions could be logically explained. There could be no sensible explanation for why some were within the unit, and some were without. Such an arbitrary identification of the proposed unit could not be compatible with effective management and rendered the proposed unit inappropriate.
31) At present, the Employer did not recognise any other union for collective bargaining purposes. There was an Employee Forum with elected representatives and pay hours and holidays were set in accordance with a national process involving assessment of job grades and a benchmarking process with annual review for salary provided for in the contracts of employment of all of the clinical staff.
32) Whilst fragmentation was concerned with separate collective bargaining units, the concept of the effect of a bargaining unit which excluded other workers in materially identical situations could be considered as a form of fragmentation of the workforce which went to the general issue of the appropriateness of the proposed unit and the issue of effective management.
33) As for the characteristics of the workers, they were all clinical staff working as an integrated team on the same terms and conditions. To exclude some clinical staff was an arbitrary and illogical consequence of the Union’s chosen proposed bargaining unit. Further, where terms and conditions of employment were standardised throughout the organisation, this could lead to a selective bargaining unit excluding workers on the same terms to be determined as inappropriate and not compatible with effective management.
34) As stated earlier, all clinical workers worked together at the same location namely the Hospital. Their circumstances were all materially identical. The effect of exclusion of groups of workers from a proposed bargaining unit in circumstances where they were engaged in materially like circumstances both as to duties and terms and conditions on effective management and appropriateness of a proposed bargaining unit was considered in Lidl Ltd (appellant) v Central Arbitration Committee and another [2007] IRLR 646. The Employer also referred to R (on the application of Cable & Wireless Services UK Ltd) (claimants) v. CAC (defendant) and Communication Workers Union (interested party) [2008] IRLR 425 on the issue of a proposed unit without clearly identifiable boundaries and the exclusion of other workers doing essentially the same jobs going to the issue of compatibility with effective management.
35) On the point made by the Union regarding professional bodies that cover clinical staff outside its bargaining unit, the Employer submitted that the Panel was only concerned with whether the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was appropriate and that there were representative bodies for clinical professions was not a point for consideration. Neither could an inference be drawn from the representatives on the staff forum as its composition was very much determined by those staff members prepared to stand for election.
36) There did not seem to be a coherent basis for excluding individual clinical staff that had the same reporting lines. Of course, salaries differed according to role but this applied to all staff in the proposed bargaining unit. They had the same annual review, holidays, hours of work (pro rata) and were based in the same location. There were no clear reasons for their exclusion given the commonality of their terms and conditions. The proposed bargaining unit did not have a defined structure. It excluded people in the same disciplines and excluded others with the same level of authority. It lacked a coherent boundary and there was no sensible or defined rationale for excluding these workers.
37) On the point of the Union’s selection of its proposed bargaining unit the Employer stated that this somewhat amorphous group would be subject to collective bargaining for pay, hours and holidays and those outside not. A bargaining unit of this sort with materially identical employees excluded will inevitably cause problems for management. It would breed anomalies and discontent if colleagues in the same departments had different bargaining structures. Whilst it was not fragmentation in the collective bargaining sense, if there was an island of collective bargaining and others were excluded, then this would go to effective management.
38) As for the Union’s point that it would be down to the Employer to decide whether to roll out any changes to terms and conditions to those clinical staff outside the bargaining unit the Employer said that this seemed to admit two possibilities - either another bargaining unit or bargaining units would need to be formed for the excluded clinical staff but this would go to the true issue of fragmentation and lead to a number of micro bargaining units. The alternative would suggest that those excluded should be brought within the bargaining unit which was what the Employer was proposing. It was common ground that senior management should be excluded but that all clinical staff should be brought within it. The Union had based its bargaining unit on union density, and this was not a construct to define a bargaining unit. The Union had not put forward a coherent rationale for its proposal. It was a classic case of it not being compatible with effective management.
39) The Employer’s evidence on commonality of terms and conditions was not challenged save reference to the absence of signatures. However, signatures had been redacted. The Employer did not believe it relevant to include the full salary structure. There were plainly different salaries set through the reward framework and these were not a relevant matter.
40) In response to questions put by the Union, the Employer was not saying that staff were carrying out the same role but that they worked in the same location, they were all clinical staff, and for the purposes of contractual provisions especially pay, hours and holidays they had essentially the same terms and conditions. They also had the same salary review, hours of work etc which was a consideration under paragraph 19B(3) and the characteristics of the staff. How the Employer treated the clinical staff as one unit could be seen from the organisational charts which showed one structure reporting to the Director of Clinical Services. It was a clearly identified group within the hospital. As for overlapping role functions, the Employer gave some examples where staff gave appropriate cover. In response to the Union querying the lack of information on pay, the Employer said that this was commercially sensitive information, and it was not relevant to the decision that the CAC had to make. On the matter of the contracts in the bundle not having been signed the Employer explained that these were redacted contracts, and, in any event, it was the characteristics of the clinical staff that was important.
41) In all the circumstances, the exclusion of many clinical staff in materially identical circumstances to the included group rendered the Union’s proposed bargaining unit not appropriate and not compatible with effective management.
4. Considerations
42) The Panel is required, by paragraph 19(2) of the Schedule to the Act, 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) states 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: (1) the views of the employer and the union; (2) existing national and local bargaining arrangements; (3) the desirability of avoiding small, fragmented bargaining units within an undertaking; (4) 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 (5) 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 he considers would be appropriate. The Panel must also have regard to paragraph 171 of the Schedule which provides that “[i]n 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 parties as expressed in their written submissions and amplified at the hearing.
43) 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. In this case the bargaining unit proposed in the request for recognition was described as “Health Care Assistances, Sterile Service Technicians, Operating Department Practitioners and Nursing staff up to and including Senior and Sister level excluding Senior Managers who work at The Montefiore Hospital”. Paragraph 19B(3)(a) of the Schedule requires the Panel to take into account the views of the Employer and the Union in deciding whether the proposed bargaining unit is appropriate. The Union has argued that its proposed bargaining unit is appropriate whereas the Employer has put forward an alternative unit which covers all clinical staff that report either directly or indirectly to the Director of Clinical Services.
44) The Panel, having carefully evaluated the evidence presented by the parties has reached the conclusion that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit is not an appropriate bargaining unit. This is because of the characteristics of the workers that the Union has chosen to exclude from its bargaining unit. It has omitted a number of workers that share the same terms and conditions with those that the Union would have included. For example, whilst the General Surgery Lead is included in the proposed bargaining unit, the Pre-assessment team lead is not. Whilst the Senior Healthcare Assistants and Healthcare Assistants are included, the Pharmacy Assistants are not. The proposed bargaining unit also includes and excludes both junior and more senior roles at the same time without any clear logic as to why it was appropriate to do so. When questioned as to how it had defined its proposed bargaining unit, the Union suggested that the main basis for the exclusion of these workers was because of a lack of information on its part as to the breadth and structure of the Employer’s organisation. It accepted during submissions that if it had more information as to how the Employer’s workforce was organised, then there was a strong likelihood that its proposed bargaining unit would have been framed in different terms. This was underlined when the Union said that it would be happy to engage with such workers in the future. As the Union has, for no clear reason, excluded a number of clinical staff with characteristics in common with those it seeks to include, the Panel, having regard to paragraph 19B(3)(d), has concluded that this would not be an appropriate bargaining unit.
45) Having decided that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was not appropriate, the Panel has moved to consider the alternative unit as set out in the Employer’s submissions. Having done so the Panel has determined that the appropriate bargaining unit is that as proposed by the Employer, namely all clinical staff based at The Montefiore Hospital below senior management level. The Panel considers that this bargaining unit is compatible with effective management. It is common ground between the parties that senior management should be excluded and the Panel agrees that this should be so. The determined bargaining unit reflects the existing organisation structure within the hospital system and would comprise workers that shared common terms and conditions. It would encompass all colleagues working alongside each other and also reflects the existing reporting system at the hospital with all clinical staff ultimately reporting to the Director of Clinical Services.
46) The views of the Union and the Employer, as described above, have been fully considered. There are no existing national or local bargaining arrangements and this bargaining unit is not small or fragmented nor would it give rise to the creation of such units. All Clinical Staff within the determined bargaining unit work at the one location. The Panel is satisfied that its decision is consistent with the object set out in paragraph 171 of the Schedule.
5. Decision
47) For the reasons set out above, the appropriate bargaining unit is “all clinical staff based at The Montefiore Hospital below senior management level”.
48) As the appropriate bargaining unit differs from the proposed bargaining unit, the Panel will proceed under paragraph 20(2) of the Schedule to decide if the application is invalid within the terms of paragraphs 43 to 50 of the Schedule.
Panel
Ms Naeema Choudry, Panel Chair
Mr Sean McIlveen
Mr Nicholas Childs
20 May 2025
6. Appendix
Names of those who attended the hearing:
For the Union
Declan Mac Intyre - GMB Regional Organiser
Laura Paterson - GMB
For the Employer
Nigel Porter - Counsel
Alice Scadden - Trainee solicitor
Emma Lord - Senior legal counsel - Spire
Rachel Dixon - Hospital Managing Director – Spire Montefiore
Clare Higley - Divisional Head of People – South - Spire
Phillipa Sparrow - Deputy General Counsel - Spire
Surinder Simmons - Director People Business Partnering - Spire
Lisa Wickwar - Director of Clinical Services – Spire Montefiore