Decision

Access Decision

Updated 20 April 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1471(2025)

17 April 2026

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECISION ON WHETHER THE EMPLOYER HAD COMPLIED WITH PARAGRAPH 26 OF THE SCHEDULE RELATING TO ITS DUTIES DURING THE BALLOTING PERIOD

The Parties:

GMB & Unite the Union

and

3663 Transport Ltd (subsidiary of BFS Group Ltd t/a Bidfood)

1. Introduction

1)         GMB and Unite the Union (the Unions) submitted an application to the CAC dated 30 May 2025 that they should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by 3663 Transport Ltd (subsidiary of BFS Group Ltd t/a Bidfood) (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising: 

“Employees employed by 3663 Transport Limited (a subsidiary of BFS Group Limited) who were covered under the previous collective bargaining arrangements with Unite and the GMB which terminated with effect from 17 January 2025. These employees are employees undertaking hourly paid transport roles across all Bidford (BFS Group Limited) depots across the UK including depots branded as Oliver Kay depots. Unite and GMB collectively bargained for these employees up until 17 January 2025.

Their job titles include, but are not limited to, roles such as: Multi Drop Driver, Van Driver, Trunker / Shunter, Debriefer, Transport Coordinator, Transport Administrator, Route Planner, Transport Operative, Driver Trainer, C1 Driver, Trainee LGV Driver and Driver Assistants.

For the avoidance of doubt the bargaining unit does not cover those employed in hourly paid warehouse roles at BFS Group Limited for whom a separate recognition application will be pursued.”

The location of the bargaining unit was described as, “The bargaining unit is spread across all BFS Group (Bidfood) depots across the UK including those branded as Oliver Kay depots. This totals 26 depots.” The application was received by the CAC on 30 May 2025, and the CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application by a letter of the same date. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC on 6 June 2025 which was copied to the Unions.

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 Paul Swann, Panel Chair and as Members Ms Julia Buck and Ms Joanne Kaye. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kate Norgate. 

3)         By a decision dated 23 July 2025 the Panel accepted the Unions’ application. The parties then entered a period of negotiation in an attempt to reach agreement on the appropriate bargaining unit. In e-mails dated 15 August 2025 the parties confirmed that the appropriate bargaining unit in this matter was that originally proposed by the Unions, albeit expressed in different terms as set out below:

“Colleagues employed by 3663 Transport Limited (a subsidiary of BFS Group Limited). These colleagues are salaried transport roles across all Bidfood (BFS Group Limited) depots, namely : Basingstoke, Battersea, Bedford, Bicester, Birmingham, Bodmin, Bradford, Chepstow, Edinburgh, Gateshead, Glasgow, Harlow, Hoddesdon, Inverness, Lee Mill, Liverpool, Manchester, Nottingham, Oban, Paddock Wood, Penrith, Reading, Salisbury, Salisbury OK, Slough, Stowmarket, Swansea, Wakefield, Wolverhampton, Worcester and Worthing. Their job titles are: c1 Driver, Debriefer, Driver LGV Trainee, Driver Trainer, Drivers Assistant, Multi Drop Driver, Route Planner, Transport Administrator, Transport Co-ordinator, Transport Operative, Trunker/Shunter and Van Driver.”

4)         As the agreed bargaining unit covered the same group of workers as that proposed by the Unions in their application, the Panel moved to the next stage in the statutory process.

5)         On 20 August 2025 the Panel, not being satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit were members of the Unions, gave notice in accordance with paragraph 23(2) of the Schedule that it intended to arrange for the holding of a secret ballot in which the workers constituting the bargaining unit would be asked whether they wanted the Unions to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf. The Panel also advised the parties that it would wait until the end of the notification period of ten working days, as specified in paragraph 24(5), before arranging a secret ballot. The parties were also asked for their views on the form the ballot should take.

6)         The notification period described in the preceding paragraph elapsed without the Unions, or the Unions and the Employer jointly, informing the CAC that a ballot was not required.  After considering the views on the parties, the Panel decided that the form of ballot would be postal and this was communicated to the parties in a decision dated 12 September 2026.

7)         As the parties were unable to agree access an informal meeting was arranged with the Panel Chair and the parties on 13 November 2025 to assist the parties in reaching an agreement on access. On 19 December 2025 the parties confirmed that access was agreed and a copy of the agreement was received by the CAC by e-mail of the same date.

8)         A proposed ballot timetable was sent to the parties by an e-mail from the case manager on 11 December 2026. No objections to this timetable were received from parties and the CAC appointed Pin Communications on 5 January 2026 as the Qualified Independent Person (the QIP) to conduct the ballot. By letters of the same date the parties were informed of the identity of the QIP and the ballot timetable and the Employer’s attention was drawn to its statutory duties under paragraph 26 of the Schedule.

9)         By e-mails dated, 6, 4 and 8 January 2026, the Unions submitted four complaints concerning access. The Unions’ complaints were copied to the Employer on 6 January 2026 and the Employer responded by letter of 8 January 2026.

10)       The claims put forward by the parties are summarised later in this decision. As it appeared these issues could not be resolved voluntarily, the parties were given notice that that there would be a hearing to determine whether or not the Employer was in breach of its statutory duties, and that the ballot would be suspended. A hearing was held on 16 March 2026 and the names of those who attended are appended to this decision. Prior the hearing, the parties supplied to the Panel and exchanged written statements of case.

2. The statutory framework

11)       The Panel must determine first whether the Employer was in breach of any of the statutory duties imposed on it by paragraph 26 of the Schedule. That paragraph imposes five duties on an employer. It is the second of these duties that form the subject of the Unions’ complaint:

To give the union such access to workers in the bargaining unit as is reasonable to enable the union to inform the workers of the object of the ballot and to seek their support and opinions on the issues involved (paragraph 26(3)).

12)       In determining these issues, account can be taken of the Code of Practice Access and unfair practices during recognition and derecognition ballots (the Access Code) issued by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. In proceedings before the CAC the Code is admissible in evidence, and any provision of the Code which the CAC considers relevant to any question “shall be taken into account in determining that question” (s 207(3) of the Act).

13)       If the CAC is satisfied that an employer has not fulfilled any of the duties imposed by paragraph 26, and the ballot has not been held, it can under paragraph 27(1) order the employer (a) to take such steps to remedy the failure as the CAC considers reasonable and specifies in the order, and (b) to do so within such period as the CAC considers reasonable and specifies in the order. Finally, paragraph 27(2) of the Schedule provides that if an employer fails to comply with such an order and the ballot has not been held, “the CAC may issue a declaration that the union is…recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit”.

3. Summary of the Unions’ submissions concerning paragraph 26

14)       The Unions’ written submissions comprised of the five e-mails, as referred to in paragraph 9 above, in which the Unions had set out, as far as is relevant, the following complaints:

E-mail of 6 January at 12.20

a) The Unions alleged that, as none of the driver teams had been notified in the agreed way that the meetings were taking place nor that there was an expectation that they attend, there was no attendance or low attendance at the first set of meetings.

b) The Unions had a reasonable expectation that workers from the bargaining unit would be in attendance at these briefings as part of their normal working day and that the message would be communicated accordingly to achieve this.

c) Further, a union representative was prevented from speaking to the first group as she arrived late for the joint presentation and the employer also failed to comply with the access agreement by refusing to alternate who gave the first presentation.

E-mail of 6 January 2026 at 13:27

d) At Worthing only 7 out of approximately 40 drivers attended the meeting. The Employer had not informed drivers about the meeting and those that did try to attend could not access the room as the doors were only accessible by a key card which they did not have.

E-mail of 7 January 2026 at 09:12

e) The Employer had communicated that briefings were purely voluntary, this message is being enforced by the staff who hand the drivers their runs in the morning meaning drivers are leaving without attending as confirmed by the Business Unit Director.

E-mail of 8 January 2026 at 17:50

f) The Unions made a further complaint giving examples of drivers being told that attendance at meetings was voluntary, whereas the Employer’s core briefs were mandatory and the Unions meetings should be treated likewise.

g) In addition, the Unions complained that the Employer had included in its presentation photos of the Unions’ Lead Representative with a big red cross super imposed over her face. The Unions submitted that this was entirely inappropriate.

E-mail of 9 January at 12:00

h) It had come to light that that employer briefings were also being left in the drivers’ vans. The Employer had denied the Unions the right to have equal access to these communication channels and the Unions were not afforded this facility in the first instance.

15)       The Unions stated that this was their biggest case before the CAC in terms of its breadth and scope of organisational challenge. The Unions explained that the parties had reached an access agreement that was considered fair on both sides, and that a disagreement subsequently arose concerning mandating those workers in the bargaining unit to attend the Unions’ access meeting. The workers in the bargaining unit were non-typical workers with no set start or finish time, and any form of access was therefore challenging. 

16)       There was already an established process whereby the workers in the bargaining unit attended a 10-minute briefing at the start of each shift. However, when the Unions’ representatives arrived at depots at 4 a.m. in the morning, the message being conveyed to the Drivers by the Transport Coordinators was that they did not need to worry about going to the Unions’ meeting. The Unions said that whilst it accepted that you cannot mandate workers to attend access meetings, it was very important how the Employer communicated this message to staff and the level of engagement concerning the message of attendance. The Unions argued that the way in which the message was communicated created an uneven balance. The message given nationally was that the sessions were voluntary. 

17)       There was an agreed process for notifying staff in terms of a letter, but even if they did get this it was accompanied by the verbal message, “don’t worry about attending the meeting”.

18)       The Unions said that there were established ways for the Employer to communicate to staff via the quarterly core briefings and that there was a clear expectation for workers to attend the briefings. A very different approach was taken for the Unions.

19)       The Unions acknowledged that there were some depots where its representatives had a positive experience and attendance was good, but there was inconsistency.   

20)       Drivers were being handed communications by the Employer when inside their trucks, and therefore there was an expectation that the Unions could do the same. The Unions referred to an e-mail chain it which it claimed demonstrated that the Unions were not allowed to put letters inside the Drivers’ trucks.

21)       To support its claim the Unions also referred to the following statements provided with its written submissions, from a number of drivers at depots across the country. Those statements were provided anonymously but the Unions had offered to provide contact details to the CAC in order to verify the information:

Driver A:

“My manager told me that attendance at core briefings is mandatory but attendance at these briefings is not – no one turned up the briefings because this was the message.”

Driver B:

“When I came into work I heard xx (transport coordinator) telling drivers there were ballot briefings taking place upstairs but they didn’t have to go if they didn’t want to. Most drivers are in a rush to get out on the road so I don’t think many people went.”

Driver C:

“We weren’t given lots of information about when the briefings were taking place, so no one really knew about it, when we did find out we were told it was voluntary. I attended mine and I actively encouraged some of my colleagues to come too. However they told me that when they tried to come to the room where they were being held the doors were locked and they couldn’t get in. We haven’t got any GMB noticeboards put up either”.

Driver D:

“No paper work related to the briefings was given out in our depot, the drivers were told by the transport coordinator that there are ballot briefs – one by the company and one by the union – and its up to you if you attend. When we attend core briefs we are not given our packs to go out on our run until we’ve attended the briefings.”

Driver E:

“Management put their ballot leaflets in my van, I haven’t had the same from the union.”

Driver F:

“Managers have tried to keep the meetings quiet, no drivers attended the first briefing held here.”

Driver G:

“We were told our briefings were voluntary so hardly anyone turned up, I went to one and sat in the managers briefing first, at the end of the managers briefing they announced that the union meeting was voluntary, so drivers didn’t need to go if they didn’t want to. Some drivers stood up to leave but I encouraged them to stay.”

Driver H:

“By Thursday we’ve already done 45 hours, we are regularly working over 55 hours week, we want to get in and out of work as quickly as possible. We were told the briefings were voluntary so it’s no wonder people aren’t attending.”

Driver I:

“Our depot put posters up about the briefings but they were all lost in the maze of other A4 posters on the noticeboards and we don’t have our own union board anymore.”

Driver J:

“Out of roughly 35 drivers, 11 attended our briefing. I think attendance was so low because we were told it was purely voluntary – this was definitely the message given.”

22)       The Unions’ Lead Representative expressed her concerns that her face had been used in the Employer’s presentation and said that it made her feel very uncomfortable, particularly as it was an all-male environment.

23)       In summary, the Unions believed that they had been denied access to the same communications systems as the Employer, and that the Employer had therefore acted in the spirit of the access agreement.

24)       In answer to a question from the Panel Chair concerning the number of access meetings that had already taken place, the Unions clarified that approximately half of the scheduled access meetings had already been held.

4. Summary of the Employer’s submissions

25)       The Employer submitted that the key question was whether access had been afforded and that it was therefore important that the Panel puts due weight on the access agreement. The parties put their heads together and agreed access, and there was no dispute that an agreement had reached. It was negotiated and not imposed, and the Panel should approach the access agreement in accordance with its terms.

26)       The Employer agreed with the Unions that that the scale of the ballot was out of the ordinary given range of different sites and geographic locations. Consequently, the Employer had been working solidly since August, providing updates on the bargaining unit to the CAC on a twice weekly basis, as well as managements’ time trying to get the access meetings agreed on a site-by-site basis, demonstrated by the various appendices to the access agreement. Operational Managers were also provided with a briefing pack with all the raw materials to supervise and facilitate the process in a way that was fundamentally fair.

27)       The Employer explained that it had grouped the Unions’ complaints together by theme.

Informing workers of union and employer briefings

28)       The Employer submitted that the Access Agreement provided that workers would be informed of briefings via a flyer that contained an agreed form of words and the date of the briefing. The Employer went far beyond the agreed procedure to inform workers of the briefings. Those steps taken included:

a) Delivering the written handout.

b) Providing verbal and written reminders on the day of the briefing;

c) Leaving copies of the handout in prominent locations so that they would be seen by workers;

d) Informing workers at the time of their despatch and again on their return from their delivery route during their daily debrief.

e) Posting timings on the noticeboard.

f) At Paddock Wood, creating a large poster of the timings, placed on its own easel next to the driver debrief area.

29)       The Unions’ allegation that “none of the driver teams has been notified in the agreed way” was vague and ambiguous. The Unions had not stated their source of information. The complaint had no basis as the evidence demonstrates.

30)       In regard to the complaint that none of the drivers based at Worthing were informed by the Employer about the Unions’ briefing, the terms of the complaint itself suggested an element of overstatement. The complaint was that none of the drivers were informed, but the Unions did not claim to have polled every driver on the subject. Contrary to the complaint, evidence provided has demonstrated that, within Worthing (and other sites within his responsibility) the Employer had adopted a notification process that far exceeded the Access Agreement.

Expectation of attendance

31)       The Unions’ position that workers should be compelled to attend union briefings, which should be treated in the same way as any other managerial instruction was wrong in principle.   

32)       If the Access Duty required the employer to mandate attendance at union briefings, one would have expected such a requirement to find expression in the five core duties under paragraph 26 of the Schedule or the Code of Practice, yet neither states nor even implied that an employer was required to compel its workers to attend. To the contrary, provisions of the Code implicitly recognised that worker attendance was voluntary.

33)       The Unions’ argument that because: (1) Core Brief was mandatory; and (2) the Code required the Unions to be given equivalent access to workers as the Employer, non briefings should also be mandatory, was misplaced for several reasons. Although the Code encouraged communication with the workers in the bargaining unit to be on an equal footing as between union and employer, the Code was concerned with the method of communication not the obligation placed on the worker to receive the communication.

34)       There were good reasons of policy why workers should not be compelled to attend ballot briefings, whether held by the Unions or the Employer. An order to attend may give the worker the wrong impression that he or she is expected to vote in a particular way. In addition, compelling attendance was impractical. Compulsion would only be effective in securing attendance if backed with a sanction for non-compliance. The Unions could not seriously expect an employer to discipline its workers for failing to attend a ballot briefing. The Unions’ position was also contrary to the agreement it reached in the Access Agreement.

35)       The voluntary nature of attendance at the briefings cuts both ways. Attendance at the Unions’ briefings may have been less than the Unions had hoped, but attendance at Employer’s briefings had been no better. It was simply untrue that the Employer had embarked on an alleged “nationwide active discouragement campaign.” Again, the complaint was greatly overstated and there was simply no evidence of any such campaign.

Alleged restrictions on access

36)       At Basingstoke, the union officer who attended to deliver the briefing was ‘prevented from speaking to the first group’ due to being 10 minutes late and was prevented from alternating who was giving the presentation first (allegedly contrary to the Access Agreement). He was not prevented from speaking to any worker, he arrived late, after the agreed time and after the Employer’s first presentation. The Employer’s first presentation could not postpone due to operational needs. The workers who attended the presentation were invited to stay for the following union presentation, but they chose not to.

37)       At Worthing, drivers could not access the meeting room due to not having a key card. This issue affected only one briefing given by the Employer. It did not affect any briefing given by the Unions. The driver who alerted Employer to the issue did not, in fact, attempt to access a meeting. Once the Employer became aware of the issue of access (after the first employer brief, but before the first union brief), steps were taken to ensure the meeting room could be accessed without difficulty, by propping open the door.

38)       The Employer said that it was important to note that attendance at the Union’ briefings was in fact higher than attendance at the Employer briefings.

Access to communication channels for written materials

39)       The Unions’ complaint was that they had been denied the opportunity to circulate a letter to drivers in their ‘driver folder’ or to leave written material in vehicles generally. The parties’ approach to the distribution of written campaign material had been consistent with the agreement between the parties. Access to driver vehicles was a matter of some sensitivity, not least from a health and safety perspective. As part of the negotiations that led to the Access Agreement, the Employer had broached the subject of whether the Unions wanted it to distribute written material on the Unions’ behalf. The Unions did not respond. Furthermore, the Unions had access to the services of the SIP to distribute written material and, for this purpose, the Employer had undertaken the very significant administrative exercise of providing workers’ contact details (of c. 1900 workers in total) on a weekly or twice weekly basis since August 2025.

40)       The Unions also had access to dedicated noticeboards, as guaranteed by the Access Agreement and were free to distribute written material when on site.

41)       Following the Access Complaints and the informal meeting with the CAC on 15 January 2026, the Employer had proposed an amendment to the Access Agreement (without any admission that it was required to do so) that it would circulate leaflets on behalf of the Unions. Rather than engage with the proposals, the Unions delayed response instead sought amendments which had not been the subject of the Access Complaints and which had not been discussed within the CAC’s informal meeting.

Content of 3663’s presentation

42)       The Unions’ complained that the Employer gave a presentation in which a red cross was placed over the face of the Unions’ Lead Representative alleging that they were telling lies. The Unions also claimed that the presentation was misogynistic because it was followed by an image of a smartly dressed man.

43)       The original evidence submitted in support of the complaint was a photo of part of a presentation slide taken through a doorway. A full copy of the presentation was provided in the Employer’s hearing bundle. The slide was not misogynistic. It was not followed by an image of a smartly dressed man. The only images of men used in the presentation were of the workers (as well as an image of a female worker). The purpose of the red ‘X’ was to demonstrate, in a visual form, that the Employer rejected the Unions reasons for why union recognition was either necessary or beneficial. The Unions’ Lead Representative concerned had released campaign videos and since these videos were part of the Unions’ campaign which the Employer rejects, they also fell under the red ‘X’. The use of the red ‘X’ did not imply that the Unions’ Lead Representative was ‘telling lies’. Rather, it signified a difference of opinion as to the need for union recognition of the sort that was normal for pre-ballot campaigns.

44)       In its concluding comments the Employer said that the Panel were asked to determine whether the Employer had failed to comply with the access duty in any material respect; and, if the answer was in the affirmative, to consider what remedial steps are reasonable.  

45)       The Employer adding that the question was have the Unions been afforded reasonable access, and that the answer to that questions was yes. There was no basis on which to conclude that the Employer had breached the access duty and therefore the CAC had no jurisdiction to make a remedial order.

5. Considerations

46)       In deciding whether the Unions’ complaint can be upheld, the Panel has fully considered the submissions of the parties, lodged in writing and amplified at the hearing on 16 March 2026.

47)       The Unions have argued that there was an underlying push on the part of the Employer to ensure that workers did not attend the Unions’ briefings. The Panel notes that the access agreement was negotiated and subsequently agreed between the parties which included the schedule of meetings. Further, the agreement is quiet as to the status of these briefings and whether or not they are mandatory. The question for the Panel is what exactly is the duty, as far as an employer is concerned, when it comes to providing the means and resources for a union to meet with workers as part of the statutory access process. For example, if an employer provides all of the resources required such as an appropriate venue and brings the timing and location to the notice of the relevant workers, even encourages workers to attend the meetings stating that they will receive full pay when doing so, is it then a failure on the employer’s part if no workers attend?

48)       Here the Panel has looked at the steps taken by the Employer and can see no failing in its obligations as far as the access agreement is concerned. Indeed, paragraph 28 above lists some of the steps taken by the Employer in order to inform the workers of the details of the briefings and it is difficult to see what further action the Employer could take. The Unions’ complaint on this ground is more about what the agreement does not say than what it does. The Employer cannot be held responsible for failing to make workers’ attendance at briefings mandatory as neither the agreement, nor the Code of Practice, says that it must do so. To do so would raise a myriad of questions, for example, would the Unions expect the Employer to take disciplinary action against a union member who elected not to attend a mandatory meeting, perhaps because the member already had decided which way they would cast their vote?  We surmise that the answer would be ‘no’ but if attendance is mandatory, then surely it follows that there must be a penalty for non-attendance at a mandatory meeting. This is perhaps why the Code of Practice steers clear of any reference to the status of such meetings.

49)       Accordingly, in the absence of any sustainable evidence before it, the Panel is satisfied that the Employer has taken all reasonable steps in order to comply with the access agreement. The Panel also notes the that the Employer had also sent briefing packs to all operations managers in order to ensure that it was equipped with the relevant material during the ballot period.

50)       As an observation, looking at the characteristics of the workers concerned, it should come as no surprise to the Unions that the drivers that form this particular bargaining unit would rather, in the middle of winter, depart their respective depots as soon as possible at the start of their shifts to ensure that their return is not delayed. It is natural that they are more concerned with the weather and road conditions at this time of year and the impact that these can have on their daily routines. It is therefore easy to understand the difficulty faced by the Unions as to the lack of attendance at its briefings and perhaps should have been foreseen. Nor would briefings at the end of the day have resulted in an increased attendance given the lack of any guarantee that drivers would have returned by any specified time. The answer when dealing with such atypical workers may well have been to focus on other forms of access that sidestep the hurdles that are so readily prevalent in this particular bargaining unit.      

51)       Turning to the complaint that the Employer’s use of the photographic image of the Unions’ Lead Representative, which was emblazoned with a red cross, was misogynistic.  Having considered the submissions on this point the Panel found the context helpful. This particular officer was the face of the campaign as far as both the Employer and the workers were concerned and the red cross was used by the Employer simply to express discontent of the content of the documents being put forward by the Unions. While the Panel finds that this may well be heavy handed and a slightly inflammatory approach and that more thought should have gone into it, in itself it did not breach the access agreement. 

6. Decision

52)       Having taken full account of the contents of the Unions’ complaints, the Employer’s response thereto and the evidence and submissions made at the hearing, the Panel concludes that the complaints that the Employer has failed to meet its duty to provide reasonable access are not well-founded. 

53)       In view of this decision the Panel confirms that the parties will shortly be informed of the amended timetable and the ballot will resume and be brought to a conclusion. This will mean that any briefings that had yet to take place but were postponed because of the ballot being stayed pending disposal of the complaints will need to be rescheduled in accordance with the timetable due to be published shortly.      

Panel

Mr Paul Swann, Panel Chair

Ms Julia Buck

Ms Joanne Kaye 

17 April 2026

7. Appendix

Names of those who attended the hearing:

For the Unions

Nadine Houghton                -           National Officer, GMB

Rachelle Wilkins                   -           GMB Regional Officer

For the Employer

Daniel Northall KC               -          Barrister (Littleton Chambers)

Andrew Lilley                          -          Partner (Deloitte Legal

George White                         -          Trainee Solicitor (Deloitte Legal)

Lisa Wyatt Smith                   -           Director of People Operations

Heather Angus                       -           People Director

James Jeffryes                       -           Head of Operations

Lisa Lamble                            -           People Partner

Adam King                              -          Head of Operations at the Worthing Depot

Stephanie Reynolds           -           Head of Operations

Chris Walkden                       -           Business Unit Director