Decision

Recognition Decision

Updated 22 September 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1460(2025)

22 September 2025

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION WITHOUT A BALLOT

The Parties: 

National Union of Journalists (NUJ)

and

Elsevier Limited (Lancet)

1. Introduction

1)         National Union of Journalists (NUJ) (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 3 April 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Elsevier Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “Editorial, Production, Marketing, Journal Office and Communications staff, excluding The Lancet Group Leadership Team, ultimately reporting to the Senior Vice President for The Lancet Group (Richard Horton), and working in the UK, including home‐ based employees and those based at Elsevier’s UK offices (currently 125 London Wall, London EC2Y 5AS, UK) - all of the aforementioned staff with a UK contract, working on any of the Lancet Group titles, and based at any UK Elsevier office or with a home-based contract. The Lancet Leadership Team and the Executive Assistant are excluded from the proposed bargaining unit. For avoidance of doubt, the Lancet Leadership Team is made up of the following roles:

• VP, Editorial Strategy & Innovation

• RI & Risk Management Lead

• Director, Marketing & Communications

• Publishing Director

• Director, Operations & Editorial Services

2)         The location of the bargaining unit was given as “125 London Wall, London, EC2Y 5AS and home-based employees who are allocated to this location” The application was received by the CAC on 3 April 2025, and the CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 4 April 2025. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 10 April 2025 which was copied to the Union.

3)         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 Mrs Lisa Gettins, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Mustafa Faruqi and Ms Joanne Kaye. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Joanne Curtis.

4)         By its written decision dated 19 May 2025 the Panel accepted the Union’s application. Moving on, as the Employer, agreed to the proposed bargaining unit on 18 July 2025, the CAC Panel now has to decide whether a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit are members of the Union. 

2. Issues

5)         Paragraph 22 of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule) provides that, if the CAC is satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the union, it must issue a declaration of recognition under paragraph 22(2) unless any of the three qualifying conditions specified in paragraph 22(4) applies. Paragraph 22(3) requires the CAC to hold a ballot even where it has found that a majority of workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the union if any of these qualifying conditions is fulfilled. The three qualifying conditions are:

(i) the CAC is satisfied that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial relations.

(ii) the CAC has evidence, which it considers to be credible, from a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit that they do not want the union (or unions) to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf.

(iii) membership evidence is produced which leads the CAC to conclude that there are doubts whether a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit want the union (or unions) to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf.

6)         Paragraph 22(5) provides that “membership evidence” for these purposes is: (a) evidence about the circumstances in which union members became members, or (b) evidence about the length of time for which union members have been members, in a case where the CAC is satisfied that such evidence should be taken into account.

3. The Union’s claim to majority membership and submission that it should be recognised without a ballot

7)         In a letter dated 20 August 2025 the Union was asked by the CAC whether it claimed majority membership within the bargaining unit and, if so, whether it submitted that it should be granted recognition without a ballot. The Union, in an e mail dated 21 August 2025, stated “I confirm that the NUJ has majority membership within the Lancet bargaining unit and therefore should be granted recognition without a ballot. In support of our request for recognition, I wish to refer the CAC panel to the earlier membership report conducted during the acceptance stage, which is attached.”

4. Summary of the Employer’s response to the Union’s claim that it should be recognised without a ballot

8)         On 21 August 2025 the CAC copied the Union’s e mail of 20 August 2025 to the Employer and invited the Employer to make submissions in relation to the Union’s claim that it had majority membership within the bargaining unit and in relation to the three qualifying conditions specified in paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule.

9)         In its response dated 2 September 2025 the Employer stated, Paragraph 22(4) of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 provides that the CAC must order a ballot where it considers this to be in the interests of good industrial relations, even where the union demonstrates majority support. The Employer said that there were a number of reasons why it was important for there to be a ballot to ensure good industrial relations. The Employer listed these as follows:

• “Employee misunderstanding Recent questions from employees show a serious lack of understanding about what recognition means — both amongst NUJ members and non-members. Some individuals suggested they have joined the union without realising that recognition could have a direct impact on their personal circumstances. We also know that the NUJ initially wanted to negotiate on a wide range of topics for instance topics included in the UK alignment for the Lancet which are outside the legal scope of collective bargaining. It seems that some employees may have joined under the impression that those issues would be negotiated. A ballot will correct these misunderstandings before recognition is finalised ensuring everyone knows that there is genuine support for recognition on the correct basis.

• Antagonism and division We are already seeing signs of tension: non-members feel antagonistic and uncertain about why their personal circumstances might change. We need to avoid the impression that NUJ members have won over non-members. This division risks poor industrial relations and difficulties in the relationship between management and between staff. A ballot would help ‘clear the air,’ enable open discussion of what recognition truly means, and provide a platform to bring all employees together around a shared understanding. A majority will demonstrate all employees are behind recognition not just NUJ members.

• Transparency and fairness At present, we do not know what the NUJ has told employees. From the questions we have received, there appear to be inaccuracies or at least an incomplete picture of statutory recognition. A ballot would ensure that employees have both perspectives set out side by side, enabling them to make a fully informed choice. Anything less risks the process taking effect without employees appreciating its consequences or based on misunderstandings.

• Reward and pay package implications Our reward package is based on performance-related bonuses. Moving to across-the board, collectively negotiated pay increases could mean a significant loss for many employees who currently benefit most from performance-based rewards. Employees have told us they are concerned about this. It would be unfair not to allow all employees the chance to vote on recognition once they are aware of the implications for their reward structure.

• Balanced judgment We have considered if there are any potential disadvantages of a ballot, but we believe that a ballot would be much better for long-term industrial relations. It will allow employees to express their choice democratically, avoid future disputes about legitimacy, and provide a stable foundation for collective bargaining.

• Limited delay We recognise that employees may worry about delay. We believe, however, that a ballot could be organised swiftly this autumn and that it would not materially delay negotiations. The modest delay is outweighed by the benefits of having a clear, democratic mandate that both employees and management can rely on. Examples of questions raised (on an anonymous basis) by employees:

A. ‘Can those in the bargaining group who are not NUJ members opt out of the bargaining unit should they wish to do so?’ and ‘Will policies be different for union and non-union members?’ and ‘Will everyone in the bargaining unit be impacted by any NUJ negotiations with Elsevier? Both NUJ members and non-members?’ – we think these questions are representative of widespread views of both NUJ members and non-members who wrongly think that recognition only affects members. That misunderstanding can be corrected by both the employer and the NUJ in a ballot process and a majority vote will ensure all in the bargaining units know that there has been a democratic process before something affects them.

B. ‘I joined the union to show solidarity with Editorial and AE colleagues. I didn’t think it would impact me directly’ and ‘What is the remit of the NUJ bargaining?’ – we have heard from other employees who have expressed regret about their engagement with the process as they did not think this would affect their contracts. A ballot would ensure everyone knows that recognition and NUJ membership is not about general ideas of solidarity, but about determining their future pay, hours and holidays.

C. ‘I wouldn’t want a third party representing me on issues like pay’ – managers feel that there will be poor industrial relations in future if recognition is simply declared at this point without people in the unit feeling they have had a say. Some members joined unaware of the impact of recognition and some non-members appear to actively oppose NUJ involvement. For good industrial relations we need everyone – employees, management and union to know that this is a change supported by a majority and therefore democratically in place. Without a ballot we think that industrial relations will be undermined by a lingering taint of illegitimacy among some in the units.

D. ‘If the NUJ group negotiate something for the yearly reward, does this mean uncoupling performance ratings and reward?’ and ‘Will the bonus system be affected…’ and ‘Will I keep my 10% IIP?’ - this is becoming a major issue that has not been properly aired to date and plainly is the subject of some misinformation. We really need to clear the air over this issue or it could result in a problematic start to industrial relations. Pay is currently performance related – particularly in relation to the 10% IIP/bonus and there is growing concerns about the NUJ negotiating for changes to pay which would impact high performing employees – both NUJ members and non-members. People are now concerned that their performance bonuses may be impacted in future which is a realistic outcome as unions generally push for across the board pay increases and oppose performance related pay increases.

The NUJ membership campaign has not been completely transparent about what employees may lose if we agree to make changes to pay – it has understandably focused only on perceived benefits for all. A ballot would ensure all employees in the units know what both sides say are the pros and cons of recognition. A ballot in favour would show that the workforces are in favour of recognition on the correct basis rather than assuming support based on union membership with members joining up for different reasons and on a mistaken basis that their pay and bonuses will not be in scope. In short, this is why we are asking for a ballot: there is confusion and misunderstanding about what recognition means, employees are divided, and significant questions remain about the impact on pay and reward. A ballot would clear the air, ensure employees are properly informed, and provide a stable foundation for industrial relations. Accordingly, the employer respectfully submits that the CAC should order a ballot in the interests of good industrial relations.”

5. Summary of the Union’s comments on the Employer’s submissions that a ballot should be held

10)       In submissions dated 11 September 2025 the Union said that none of the three qualifying criteria at paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule were met. In particular, the Union said that it considered that there was no good reason to hold a ballot, and that doing so would not have any net positive impact on industrial relations. The Union said that it had considered the Employer’s submissions dated 2 September 2025 in which the Employer had made a series of assertions but not attempted to evidence them. The Union said that there was no confusion or misunderstanding as to what recognition would mean further “from a workforce of 250 personnel only 29 questions about the process and what this means for them were received. The union has continued to provide information to its members throughout the process. We also submit that a ballot would not actually address the issues raised by the employer. The employer seeks to conflate support for recognition with support for collective bargaining priorities and strategy. This is not relevant to this application. The issue is whether the NUJ has majority membership, not whether a majority of the members of the proposed bargaining unit support all aspects of its collective bargaining strategy. A ballot is about support for the concept of recognition and not the detail of how it manifests at that particular time.”

11)       The Union went on to say that the Employer had produced no evidence to suggest that the workers were divided and only two comments had been received which could be read as unsupportive. The Union contended that to continue to a ballot in these circumstances would unnecessarily draw out recognition, and lead to division by an extended process that was contrary to good industrial relations. “The effect on the workforce (of course) is not strictly relevant to the questions which the CAC is required to determine. It is (however) suggested that the CAC should be slow to give too much weight to (or read too much into) correspondence which has been selective at best by Elsevier should the question of whether any of the criteria under paragraph 22(4) were met. We note that in employer’ submissions that ‘A majority will demonstrate all employees are behind recognition not just NUJ members’ and ‘For good industrial relations we need everyone – employees, management and union to know that this is a change supported by a majority and therefore democratically in place. Without a ballot we think that industrial relations will be undermined by a lingering taint of illegitimacy among some in the units.’ This demonstrates a significant misunderstanding of the ballot process. If the union wins the ballot then the CAC ‘must’ issue a declaration that the union is entitled to be recognised (para 29(3)). Mathematically the union can win the ballot on a 40% turnout (para 29(3)).”

12)       The Union said that the Employer had not addressed the question of why a ballot was necessary in the interests of good industrial relations. The union said that a reference to industrial relations was a reference to the industrial relationship between the trade union and the employer (and not to the relationship between employers and employees and/or as between employees). The Union went on to say that much of the Employer’s submissions “on paragraph 22(4)(a) seeks to re-litigate the question of the level of support for collective bargaining across the bargaining unit. This is not the question the CAC has to answer in determining the question under paragraph 22(4)(a) (or indeed under any subparagraph of 22(4)). The statutory scheme provides that if the CAC is satisfied that 50% of the bargaining unit are members of the union, then the union will be awarded collective bargaining unless one of the qualifying criteria under paragraph 22(4) are met.”

13)       The Union said that the Employer had suggested that there was a narrow majority of Union members in the bargaining unit. The Union said “It does not follow (and this does not suggest) that a ballot would be in the interests of good industrial relations in these circumstances. The authors of Harvey on Industrial Relations and Employment Law provide at chapter [1342] (emphasis added): …The CAC will therefore begin from the premise that a union which has majority membership should be awarded recognition without a ballot unless there is good reason to hold otherwise. In particular, the narrowness of the union’s majority is not of itself a ground for ordering a ballot: the CAC is not entitled to substitute its own, higher hurdle for the hurdle specified in the Act of ‘50 per cent plus one”.

14)       The Union said that the workers had been given the opportunity to submit anonymous questions or make comment regarding union recognition. “Only 1% of which indicated any negativity about NUJ representation. The CAC can therefore be confident that anyone minded to express support for a ballot would have done so.” The Union said that even if the number of members in the bargaining unit expressing support for a ballot had been higher this would not have been relevant to the question the CAC had to determine under paragraph 22(4)(a). “The question is whether it is in the interests of good industrial relations i.e. the relations between the NUJ and the Elsevier. The question does not relate to the views of the individual employees within the bargaining unit.”

15)       The Union said that the Employer had contended that the only way to clear the air and ensure workers were properly informed and provide a stable foundation for industrial relations was to hold a secret ballot. The Union said this was a “bald, unevidenced submission.” The Union said that the CAC should not accept this at face value. The Union said that it did not accept that there were signs of tension or a “lack of transparency leading to misunderstandings through lack of communication.” The Union went on to say, “but even if Elsevier is right about this atmosphere of ‘tension’ and non-members feeling ‘antagonistic’ the CAC should consider whether it is satisfied there should be a ballot in the interests of good industrial relations. As the authors of Harveys say at [1341]: The CAC might, for example, order a ballot to clear the air where there is an atmosphere of mutual hostility and mistrust. In such a case, however, the question is not simply whether there is an atmosphere of mutual hostility and mistrust, but whether holding a ballot would do anything to improve the situation.” The Union further said “the CAC can be satisfied that this is a case where Elsevier will campaign substantially in relation to a ballot. It will cause further delays which is not in the interests of good industrial relations. The NUJ suggests that a ballot is not in the interests of good industrial relations. Indeed – a ballot will have a negative effect on industrial relations. Moreover, campaigning in the run up to a ballot will tend to polarise views, stoke up feelings, and further worsen industrial relations. The CAC will therefore begin from the premise that a union which has majority membership should be awarded recognition without a ballot unless there is good reason to hold otherwise.”

16)       The Union concluded by saying that the Employer did not seek to rely upon the other two “statutory safety valves. For completeness however we make the following observations. Paragraph 22(4)(b) – credible evidence from staff that they do not want the union to be recognised for the purposes of collective bargaining. The NUJ have had no indication that members do not wish the union to be recognised for the purposes of the collective bargaining. Elsevier have not provided any evidence to suggest that members do not support recognition. Paragraph 22(4)(c) – Membership evidence doubts support for collective bargaining There is nothing in any of the evidence to which Elsevier have pointed which should lead the CAC to conclude there are doubts whether a significant number of members within the bargaining unit want the union to conduct collective bargaining.”

6. Considerations

17)       The Schedule requires the Panel to consider whether it is satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the Union. If the Panel is satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the Union, it must declare the Union to be recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the workers constituting the bargaining unit unless it decides that any of the three qualifying conditions set out in paragraph 22(4) is fulfilled. If the Panel considers that any of those specific conditions is fulfilled, it must give notice to the parties that it intends to arrange for the holding of a secret ballot. 

18)       The membership and support check conducted on 6 May 2025 had shown the Employer listing a total of 191 workers, in the bargaining unit. The Union had provided a list of 106 union members. The number of union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 106, a membership level of 55.50%. Accordingly, the Panel accepts that the majority of workers in the bargaining unit are members of the Union.

19)       The Panel has carefully considered the submissions of both parties and all the evidence in reaching its decision as to whether any of the qualifying conditions laid down in paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule is fulfilled.

Paragraph 22(4) (a)

20)       The first condition is that the Panel is satisfied that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial relations. The Employer has put forward submissions that holding a secret ballot would be in the interests of good industrial relations. The Union in response has said that a ballot would do just the opposite. After considering both sets of submissions the Panel is satisfied that this condition does not apply.

Paragraph 22(4) (b)

21)       The second condition is that the CAC has evidence, which it considers to be credible, from a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit that they do not want the Union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf. The CAC has no such evidence, and this condition does not apply.

Paragraph 22(4) (c)

22)       The third condition is that membership evidence is produced which leads the CAC to conclude that there are doubts whether a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit want the Union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf. No such evidence has been produced, and this condition does not apply.

7. Declaration of recognition

23)       The Panel is satisfied in accordance with paragraph 22(1)(b) of the Schedule that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the Union. The Panel is satisfied that none of the conditions in paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule is met. Pursuant to paragraph 22(2) of the Schedule, the CAC must therefore issue a declaration that the Union is recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the workers constituting the bargaining unit. The CAC accordingly declares that the Union is recognised by the Employer as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit comprising “Editorial, Production, Marketing, Journal Office and Communications staff, excluding The Lancet Group Leadership Team, ultimately reporting to the Senior Vice President for The Lancet Group (Richard Horton), and working in the UK, including home‐ based employees and those based at Elsevier’s UK offices (currently 125 London Wall, London EC2Y 5AS, UK) - all of the aforementioned staff with a UK contract, working on any of the Lancet Group titles, and based at any UK Elsevier office or with a home-based contract. The Lancet Leadership Team and the Executive Assistant are excluded from the proposed bargaining unit. For avoidance of doubt, the Lancet Leadership Team is made up of the following roles:

• VP, Editorial Strategy & Innovation

• RI & Risk Management Lead

• Director, Marketing & Communications

• Publishing Director

• Director, Operations & Editorial Services.”

Panel

Mrs Lisa Gettins, Panel Chair

Mr Mustafa Faruqi

Ms Joanne Kaye

22 September 2025