Decision

Bargaining Unit Decision

Updated 23 October 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1478(2025)

22 October 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

Zentia Limited

1. Introduction

1)         GMB (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 3 July 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Zentia Limited (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “All shift fitters, shift electricians, production operators, factory workers up to but excluding supervisors and DC operators.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “Kingsway South, Team Valley, Gateshead, Tyne & Wear NE11 0SP.” The application was received by the CAC on 3 July 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 dated 10 July 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 Benjimin Burgher, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr John Rawling, and Mr Christopher Burrows. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kate Norgate.  

3)         By a decision dated 13 August 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 6 October 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.

5)         Zentia was a manufacturing facility of mineral fibre tiles based in Team Valley, Gateshead that employed 167 employees (both blue-collar and white-collar employees) ranging from manufacturing employees to sales and marketing to support employees such as finance, IT, and People Services. Zentia’s subsidiary, Zentia Profiles Limited (ZPL) was also based in Team Valley which was a facility manufacturing metal grid to complement Zentia’s offering of mineral fibre tiles. ZPL employed 19 employees.

2. Matters clarified at the beginning of the hearing

6)         The Employer’s supporting documents. The Panel had noted that the Employer had provided with its submissions a copy of a petition with workers’ views on recognition of the Union. The Panel Chair informed the Employer that it did not consider the petition to be relevant to the matter which the Panel is required to consider at this stage of the process, and that it may be relevant at a later stage.

7)         The Union’s proposed bargaining unit. There was some confusion about what roles were included in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit under the term “factory workers”. At the start of the hearing the Panel Chair invited the Union to clarify which roles the Union contends should be included in its proposed bargaining unit. The Union explained that during discussions with the Employer it came to light that it had used old job titles, and that for clarity its proposed bargaining unit as described in its formal request letter and its application to the CAC should have used the term “Shift Worker”, instead of “Factory Worker”. The Union also clarified that from the list of job roles provided by the Employer, it believed the following roles fell within its proposed bargaining unit: Production Operators, Shift Electrical Maintenance Technicians, and Shift Maintenance Mechanical Fitters. The Union clarified that the roles of Dayshift Effluent Worker and Shift Maintenance Technician did not fall within its proposed bargaining unit, the Union unsure whether they worked shifts or not and should be taken out of consideration.

3. Summary of the submissions made by the Union

8)         The Union submitted that its proposed bargaining unit was appropriate. The Union said that its proposed bargaining unit covered workers whose role within the factory was either an Operator or a Production Operator, who worked a shift pattern between 06:00 to 18:00 and 18:00 to 06:00 over each month. The Union explained that it had initially included “Factory Workers” as a separate heading within its proposed bargaining unit, and that it was meant to describe those factory workers, who worked on shifts within the business. In response to a question from the Panel Chair as to why the other workers with “shift” within their title did not, in the Union’s view, fall within its proposed bargaining unit, the Union said that those workers worked day shifts only. The Union said that there were 57 workers in total in its proposed bargaining unit.

9)         The Union said that the shift workers/operators had their holidays built into the shift rosters and these were determined by the company. All of the other workers outside the proposed bargaining unit, who fell into the alternative bargaining unit being proposed by the Employer, took their annual leave when they wished, and that they were not part of a shift roster.

10)       The Union said that the were no existing national and local bargaining arrangements.

11)       The Union maintained that its proposed bargaining unit avoided fragmentation. Furthermore, it was a distinct group of workers with shared characteristics, namely, those workers all worked one of two shift patterns set out in paragraph 8 above. The workers in the proposed bargaining unit were all based at one location, the TV2 site. The workers in the proposed bargaining unit also had the same terms and conditions relating to their annual leave. 

12)       When commenting on the alternative bargaining unit being proposed by the Employer, the Union stated that it believed the Employer’s proposal included several staff members. The Union further added that its members had raised concern over the Employer’s proposal. 

4. Summary of the submissions made by the Employer

13)       The Employer maintained that there were in fact 81 workers who fell within the Union’s proposed bargaining unit based on the Union’s original description that included the term “factory workers”. The Employer noted that the Union was now maintaining that it had intended to use the term shift workers. The Employer adding, that had the Union used this term earlier in the statutory proceedings, it would have provided some clarity. Nonetheless, the Employer argued that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was not compatible with effective management, and that the only appropriate bargaining was one that comprised all factory workers, as per the Employer’s list of 81 workers that it had produced at the time of the membership and support check during the acceptance stage, and, subsequently, those 81 categories/job titles listed when submitting the specified information to the Union and the CAC following the Panel’s decision to accept the Union’s application.

14)       The Employer explained that the 29 roles that the Union was seeking to exclude also carried out roles that were pertinent to the running of the factory, and therefore the Employer considered that those workers also fell under the definition of “factory worker”. The Employer believed that the Union had revised its application in order to narrow the scope of its application to demonstrate a level of support of over 50%.

15)       The Employer explained that on 24 September 2025, the parties met with Acas in an attempt to agree the bargaining unit. The Employer believed that it was evident from that meeting that the Union was seeking to informally revise its proposed bargaining unit to remove the term “factory worker” and to narrow the application to only include Production Operators and certain employees, who were not classed as “staff”. The Employer said that the Union had argued that “staff” was classified as anyone that had managerial responsibility or being on a higher rate of pay. The Union had also said that the term “factory worker” was intended only to cover Production Operators and not the broad range of factory workers. The Employer said that throughout the discussions with Acas, the Union referred to having submitted a revised application, but when challenged, it was clear that the Union was attempting to revise its application during those discussions.

16)       The Employer submitted that the Union’s proposed bargaining was too narrow and would lead to fragmented bargaining units. The Employer provided with its submissions the terms and conditions for a number of roles that the Union had excluded. The Employer believed that excluding those roles would lead to division within the specific teams as there would be some workers within the same team who had union recognition, and others who did not.  

17)       The Employer said that the main differentiator between shift workers and non-shift workers who worked in the factory was their holiday entitlement. Shift workers had their holiday entitlement built into their shift patterns whereas non-shift workers could determine when to use their holiday entitlement (subject to line manager approval), with the exception of bank holidays and Christmas applicable to both shift and non-shift workers.

18)       The Employer said that the Union had also defined its proposed bargaining unit purposely excluding Shift Supervisors and the Distribition Centre (DC) Operators. Both roles were responsible for employees within the proposed bargaining unit, and they were located at the same premises as those employees within the proposed bargaining unit. Excluding those workers, who carried out similar roles to the workers in the proposed bargaining unit, would result in an unnecessary divide between the respective employees. The Employer had provided with its submissions a sample copy of the terms and conditions for both roles. The Employer explained that the exclusion of both Shift Supervisors (who supervised the teams of Production Operators) and the DC employees, would lead to fragmentation. The Employer maintained that it was clear that the Union did not want to include any employees with any authority over other roles and that it was seeking to discount any roles that were capable of delegating tasks. The Union had continuously referred to those roles as “staff” roles.  

19)       In response to the Union’s comment that it had only intended to include “shift” workers, the Employer argued that this was at odds with the inclusion of the Dayshift Effluent Operator, who the Union had previously included during discussions with Acas, and the exclusion of the Press Operator and Shift Maintenance Technician roles, who were shift workers.

20)       The Employer explained that the Production Operators were not all on the same rates of pay as claimed by the Union. They carried out different tasks depending on their skillset and ability. The Employer referred to a table provided with its submissions to demonstrate the various tasks and positions that the Production Operators carried out within their teams. All of the positions within the table had a universal job role of “Production Operator” but within that there were different grades, rates of pay and responsibilities. The Employer had provided with its submissions a sample copy of the terms and conditions of employment for each of those grades in order to demonstrate that the definition of “staff” members that the Union was now seeking to disapply would have the effect of causing fragmentation within the Union’s proposed bargaining, specifically within the team of Production Operators. The Employer believed that the Union had been instructed by its members that all the Production Operator roles earnt the same rate of pay, the Employer adding that this was incorrect. Employees across Zentia and ZPL were all subject to performance related pay, which meant that there were differing rates of pay both from a performance perspective and dependent on the specific tasks undertaken as part of the grades of the Production Operator roles. The Employer also contended that there was an element of supervision within the various Production Operators with some having “authority” over the actions of others.

21)       The Employer said that by excluding the remaining 29 roles or, indeed, some of the Production Operators applying the Union’s revised definition, would have the effect of excluding employees in materially identical circumstances. This would be inappropriate and incompatible with effective management.   

22)       The Employer concluded, stating the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was ambiguous, given that it was too narrow and fragmented.

5. Considerations

23)       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) 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 “[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 both the Union and the Employer as expressed in their written submissions and as amplified during the course of the hearing.

24)       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. The Panel notes that it cannot reject the Union’s proposed bargaining unit because it feels that a different unit would be more appropriate nor, in considering whether it is compatible with effective management, can it consider whether it is the most effective or desirable unit in that context.

25)       Despite seeking clarification from the Union at the start of the hearing the Panel has found it particularly challenging trying to ascertain which workers fall within the Union’s proposed bargaining unit, and whether in fact the revisions submitted by the Union, covered the same group of workers as those in the Union’s original definition. The Panel considers that a bargaining unit that is not easily identifiable would not be compatible with effective management. Furthermore, the Panel also finds that there are inconsistencies as to the rationale of the bargaining unit proposed by the Union. The Panel has also considered 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 as those that the Union would have included. Before us this was expanded to include Dayshift Effluent Worker and Shift Maintenance Technician. The lack of clarity and risk of fragmentation leads the Panel to find that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit consisting of 57 workers is not appropriate.

26)       Having decided that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit is not appropriate the Panel’s next responsibility is to decide a bargaining unit which is appropriate. The Panel has determined that a bargaining unit consisting of all factory workers up to but excluding supervisors and DC operators located at Kingsway South, Team Valley, Gateshead, Tyne & Wear NE11 0SP is an appropriate bargaining unit. The Panel considers that this bargaining unit is compatible with effective management. Workers in this bargaining unit are a distinct group whose jobs essentially involved activities related to the running of the factory. All of the factory workers shared common terms and conditions of employment, albeit with varying rates of pay. The main differentiator between shift workers and non-shift workers who worked in the factory was when they could take their holiday entitlement.  

27)       In determining the appropriate bargaining unit, the Panel considered the alternative bargaining unit put forward by the Employer. Having considered the parties’ submissions on this point, we do not find this to be an appropriate bargaining unit as it includes the roles of Shift Supervisor and the DC Operator. Whilst more senior staff can give guidance on day to day operational tasks, the Panel accepts the role of Shift Supervisor has formal supervisory authority and DC Operators have different reporting line and job functions to justify exclusion from the bargaining unit.

28)       The Panel has considered the matters listed in paragraph 19B(3) of the Schedule so far as they do not conflict with the need for the unit to be compatible with effective management. The views of the Employer and the Union, as described earlier in this decision, have been fully considered. The Panel does not consider that there are any existing local or national bargaining arrangements. The bargaining unit is not small, nor will it give rise to fragmentation. It encompasses a discrete group of workers who share many common terms and conditions and job characteristics. All of the workers are employed at one location, Kingsway South, Team Valley, Gateshead, Tyne & Wear NE11 0SP. The Panel is satisfied that its decision is consistent with the object set out in paragraph 171 of the Schedule.    

6. Decision

29)       The appropriate bargaining unit is “all factory workers located at Kingsway South, Team Valley, Gateshead, Tyne & Wear NE11 0SP. For the avoidance of doubt Shift Supervisors and DC Operators are excluded.”

30)       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

Mr Benjimin Burgher, Panel Chair

Mr John Rawling

Mr Christopher Burrows

22 October 2025

7. Appendix

Names of those who attended the hearing:

For the Union

John Guy                                    -           GMB, Regional Officer

Stephen Thompkins             -           GMB, Senior Officer

For the Employer

Gert van Doormalen            -           Managing Director

Chris Taylor-Carr                   -           Operations Director

Kim Turnbull                            -           Senior People Services Business Partner

Gillian Dunn                            -          General Counsel and Company Secretary