Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 20 May 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1461(2025)

19 May 2025

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECISION ON WHETHER TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATION

The Parties:

National Union of Journalists (NUJ)

and

Elsevier Limited

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 staff, ultimately reporting to the Senior Vice President for Cell Press (Richard Remington), and working in the UK, excluding the Cell Press Leadership Team, which is made up of the Publishing Directors. The location of the bargaining unit was given as “125 London Wall, London EC2Y 5AS, UK; and Nielsen House, John Smith Drive, Oxford Business Park South, Oxford OX4 2WB, UK and home‐based employees who are allocated to these locations.” 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.

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 Mrs Lisa Gettins, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Paul Noon OBE and Mrs Deborah England. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Joanne Curtis.

3)          The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 17 April 2025.  The acceptance period was extended to 30 May 2025 in order to allow time for the parties to comment on the results of a membership check and for the Panel to consider said comments before arriving at a decision.  

2. Issues

4)         The Panel is required by paragraph 15 of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule) to decide whether the Union’s application to the CAC is valid within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9; is made in accordance with paragraphs 11 or 12; is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 33 to 42; and therefore, should be accepted.

3. Summary of the Union’s application

5)         In its application to the CAC the Union stated that it had made a request for recognition to the Employer dated 14 February 2025. The Union said that the Employer responded on 28 February 2025 however that response was not actually received by the Union until 1 March 2025 due to the Employer’s first attempt sending the response having failed. The Union said that the letter rejected the request on the basis that the proposed bargaining unit was incompatible with effective management. The Union said that the Employer had further said “Operationally, it does not make sense for these employees to have separate representation from the rest of STMJ, let alone from the editorial staff working on Heliyon titles. As such the request is not accepted.” The Union attached both letters to its application.

6)        When asked whether the Union had made a previous application under the Schedule for statutory recognition for workers in the proposed bargaining unit or a similar unit the Union answered, “No.” The Union stated that, following receipt of the request for recognition, the Employer did not propose that Acas should be requested to assist the parties.

7)         The Union stated that the total number of workers employed by the Employer was 1653. The Union stated that there were 42 workers in the proposed bargaining unit and that the Employer did not agree with this figure. When asked to state the number of union members in the proposed bargaining unit and to provide evidence to support this figure the union answered that the majority of workers within the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union. The Union said that detailed information on membership would be provided separately upon request due to confidentiality.

8)         The Union stated that the reason for selecting the proposed bargaining unit was because it contained “a coherent group of all staff below senior leadership level with common employment terms and conditions, who perform related, interdependent job functions and maintain active day-to-day interactions. The unit is compatible with existing effective management structures and preserves shared operational workflows. Heliyon staff members are excluded because they operate in a self-contained manner, interact primarily with external academic editors, with differing job descriptions and workflows from the rest of Cell Press.” The Union said that the bargaining unit had not been agreed with the Employer.

9)         In answer to the question whether there was any existing recognition agreement which it was aware of which covered any workers in the bargaining unit, the Union answered “no.” The Union confirmed that it held a current certificate of independence. The Union stated that it had copied its application and supporting documents to the Employer on 3 April 2025.

4. Summary of the Employer’s response to the Union’s application

10)       The Employer said that it had received the Union’s written request for recognition on 14 February 2025. The Employer said that it had responded in a letter dated 28 February 2025 refusing the request.^{[footnote 1]} The Employer attached a copy of the letter to its response.

11)       The Employer confirmed that it had received a copy of the Union’s application form from the Union on 3 April 2025. The Employer stated that it had not, before receiving a copy of the application form from the Union, agreed the bargaining unit and that it did not agree the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer said that the Union had applied “for recognition for collective bargaining” for two ^{[footnote 2]}limited groups of employees of Elsevier Ltd based at its London Wall office, Nielsen House office in Oxford, Exeter office and home-based employees. The Employer said that the proposed bargaining unit for the purposes of this application was defined as “Editorial staff, ultimately reporting to the Senior Vice President for Cell Press (Richard Remington), and working in the UK, excluding the Cell Press Leadership Team, which is made up of the Publishing Directors.” The Employer said that this appeared to be a “very small proposed bargaining unit containing very few employees.” ^{[footnote 3]} The Employer said that the bargaining units proposed by the Union in its respective applications were part of the Scientific, Technical and Medical Journals (STMJ) division of Elsevier.

12)       The Employer explained that this part of the business was responsible for publishing premium journals under the Lancet and Cell Press families. The Employer said that this division was located in offices in different parts of the world reporting to the Managing Director of STMJ based in Amsterdam. The Employer went on to say that there was also other employees working on Health & Medical Science, Life Science & Social Science and Physical Science journals that fell under STMJ. The Employer explained that these workers were also publishers and editors based in the same locations as the workers presently assigned to work on the Lancet and Cell Press.

13)       The Employer went on to provide examples and said “within the STMJ team based in London office there is a group of employees who work as part of the Print Content Development & Management job family such as editors or publishers. We have 260 employees in the London office in this job family of these it would appear that 149 employees would fall within the proposed Lancet BU and 31 within the Cell Press BU. 80 employees in this job family would be excluded from the proposed BUs containing the colleagues that they work alongside at the London Wall office who are in the same or similar job or role profiles. To provide an example of this within the Print Content Development & Management job family there are 72 roles in the same profile Print Content Mgmt Generalist IV. The first proposed BU (Lancet) cuts across this as it only includes 33 of the 72 PCM Generalist IVs. The remaining 29 would be Generalist IV employees who have the same role profile as colleagues they work in the same location who are included in the BUs. However, they would be outside the proposed BUs which include the colleagues they work in the same location on a day-to-day basis. That is not practical or workable. The second proposed (Cell Press) BU also cuts across this function as it only includes 31 of the 260 London employees in the group. It includes only 10 of the 72 PCM Generalist IVs. Both proposed BUs fail to include colleagues of those in the BUs with the same job or role profile who are part of the same overall business at the same or a different location.”

14)       The Employer said that it could provide multiple examples of this “in other job families and locations where some employees would fall within the BUs and others not in the BUs.” The Employer said that it was not compatible with effective management for Elsevier employees (especially those working together in the London Wall Elsevier office) to be split among “two fragmented bargaining units and a cohort excluded from either proposed bargaining unit.” That would result in inequality and unfairness as between Elsevier colleagues who work alongside each other in the same or similar role profiles and yet would have to be treated differently by Elsevier because they are in one or other proposed BU or excluded from both. This is particularly the case as there is mobility within and outside the Print Content Development & Management function of STMJ. Just within the last 5 years there have been 8 employees who have moved to work on Lancet journals and 10 employees moving to work on Cell Press journals. The mobility is also the other direction with 8 Lancet and 5 Cell Press moving elsewhere within the business for development. If there was separate bargaining for those presently assigned to Lancet and/or Cell Press that would depress internal mobility within the employer as the fragmented BUs would be designed to generate differential pay and conditions from the same roles elsewhere in the same office. That would make it harder to move as a change in terms and conditions would be required.

15)       The Employer said that the Cell Press proposed bargaining unit did not include all the workers who were assigned to work on Cell Press journals “such as the 23 employees presently assigned to work on Heliyon which is an important Cell Press publication.” The Employer said that it made no sense “to include some employees working on Cell Press publications but exclude others who are in similar or comparable roles. Employees working on Heliyon operate and interact in the same manner as other STMJ employees, have the same or similar role profiles, work at the same location and under the same Cell Press reporting hierarchy. It would be unworkable to carve them out of the proposed Cell Press BU.”

16)       The Employer concluded this point by saying that it considered the proposed bargaining unit would be incompatible with effective management and that it would also be incompatible with the management aim to drive collaboration across the global business. The Employer said “we have standard terms and conditions for employees across departments which are agreed at a global level in Elsevier and are standardised by location which is reviewed consistently in Elsevier to ensure we remain competitive to the market. Colleagues in the proposed BUs work alongside colleagues with the same job profiles in other Elsevier journals as well as other business groups; Academic & Government, Health Markets and Corporate Markets which all share a common job architecture which is the foundation for our pay scales and benefits to ensure consistency of treatment across business groups for employees with the same or similar job profiles. Pay is also reviewed outside of the annual process using job architecture to maintain internal equity and recognise performance and development with promotions and role changes.”

17)       The Employer stated that it had 1,781 employees in the United Kingdom. The Employer said that it did not agree with the number of workers in the bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application, and that it ought to be 69 as it was not workable or appropriate to exclude 23 workers who were part of Cell Press and working on its Heliyon publication. The Employer added that it was also not appropriate to exclude 2 publishing directors. The Employer said that there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit. In answer to the question whether it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer answered, “Elsevier does not maintain such information but will investigate.”

18)       When asked to give its reasons if it did not consider that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit would be likely to support recognition, the Employer said “we believe employees working on Cell Press publications would not support any differentiation or separation from their colleagues working on Heliyon or indeed from other STMJ colleagues. Further the workers in STMJ value the reward review process, the global job architecture and the drive for equity and fairness of pay and terms. They are unlikely to support any recognition which would undermine these important features of their working life and relationships with colleagues.”

19)       In answer to the questions if the application is made by more than one Union and you wish to put forward a case that the Unions will not co-operate with each other, please give reasons and whether it was aware of any previous application under Schedule A1 for statutory recognition made by this Trade Union in respect of this bargaining unit or a similar bargaining unit, the Employer answered “N/A.”

20)       When asked if it had received any other applications in respect of workers in the proposed bargaining unit the Employer again answered “N/A.” The Employer said that it consented to its contact details being forwarded to Acas.

5. Summary of the Union’s comments on the Employer’s response to the application

21)       The Union said that it had chosen the proposed bargaining unit due to the strong membership density in it. The Union said that it believed that the proposed bargaining unit of “staff within Cell Press, with the exception of Heliyon editors and the Cell Press leadership team” was clearly defined and that the Employer could be in no doubt as to which workers were included. The Union said that the proposed bargaining unit was compatible with effective management and fully aligned with existing operational structures and reporting lines, and avoided small, fragmented units of workers. The Union went on to say that the proposed Cell Press bargaining unit represented a coherent group of staff below senior leadership level, all ultimately reporting to the Senior Vice President (SVP) of Cell Press. The Union said that the bargaining unit included staff with the same employment terms and conditions, who only worked on Cell Press-branded journals and performed related and interdependent job functions.

22)       An organogram for The Scientific, Technical and Medical Journals (STMJ) Elsevier business unit was provided by the Union as part of a separate further information document on behalf of both The Lancet Group and Cell Press.

23)       The Union went on to describe the bargaining unit stating:

“Staff in the bargaining unit include all in-house professional editorial roles, which are Associate Scientific Editor, Scientific Editor, Senior Scientific Editor, Deputy Editor, Senior Deputy Editor, Editor in Chief. For the Trends journals within Cell press, this includes Trends Editor, Senior Trends Editor, Senior Managing Trends Editor. Additional supportive roles such as Editorial and Features Administrators, Editorial Operations Associate, Senior Editorial Operations Associate are also included. Cell Press professional editors develop and improve research papers directly, handle the full peer review process, perform quality control, recruit papers from scientists, and make all key manuscript decisions independently. Editorial Operations Associates support editors in handling journal correspondence and performing detailed technical checks on accepted manuscripts to ensure compliance with publication guidelines. Editorial and Features Administrators edit feature articles and commission content for the magazine section of the journal. All of the roles therefore share similar, collaborative and interconnected job descriptions, ultimately producing and quality checking content for their primary journal.”

24)       The Union continued by saying that the proposed bargaining unit maintained active day-to-day interactions and team working between professional editors at Cell Press-branded journals. Further the Union said that “the interactions are centred on this specific portfolio and include regular discussions between editors of different journals, the consultation on and subsequent transfer and publication of manuscripts. There is no routine operational interaction between staff inside Cell Press and staff outside of Cell Press, that is staff assigned to other STMJ journal families or The Lancet journals, and no management crossover. There is also no substantial interaction between editors of Heliyon and editors at other Cell Press journals. Editors do not collaborate or know each other, even though they share the same office space.” The union said that moving into another position outside of Cell Press would normally require a substantial change of job description, line management, and contract (regardless of whether collective bargaining agreements were established).

25)       The Union said that the Job Families and Job Profiles referenced in the Employer’s response were set at the RELX (Elsevier’s owner) level and had no purpose in day-to-day operations. “Staff within a given ‘Job Family’ do not operate as a single unit; they do not necessarily work on common projects, interact, or even know which other staff are in that ‘Family’.”

26)       The Union said that workers employed at the journal Heliyon (everyone reporting to the Editorial Director of Heliyon) were excluded from the bargaining unit because their journal structure, job titles, job descriptions and workflows differed substantially from the rest of the Cell Press journals. The union said “specifically, at Heliyon key manuscript decisions are made by external, academic editors who are scientists, hold primary employment with universities or research institutions and undertake editorial responsibilities as a secondary role. Heliyon employs in-house ‘Editorial section managers (ESM)’ who are tasked with supporting the external academic (non-professional) editors within their journal sections but are not professional handling editors who develop papers. By contrast, Cell Press professional editors recruit, develop and improve research papers directly, handle the full peer review process, perform quality control, and make all key manuscript decisions independently. In addition, they commission articles from authors and sometimes write editorials.”

27)       The union further explained that the entry level qualifications differed between in-house editorial staff at Cell Press journals and Heliyon Editorial section managers (ESM). “Heliyon ESMs require an undergraduate degree in medical, life, physical or social science, whereas the rest of the Cell Press journals require a PhD and scientific work expertise in an area related to the journal’s scope. This requirement applies even to entry level editorial roles at Cell Press journals, such as Associate Scientific Editors. Salary bands therefore also differ. In summary, whilst job roles both at Heliyon and the rest of the Cell Press journals may have ‘editorial’ in their title, there is a difference between researching, producing, quality checking and commissioning work. Cell press professional editorial workers are expected to do all these tasks, whilst Heliyon ESMs are not. This is a distinct enough difference that the employer has created separate pay and management structures, as well as job titles and roles between Heliyon journals and the other Cell Press journals. The differences in operational workflows and job structures would likely lead to differing bargaining interests and make negotiations within one combined bargaining unit challenging.”

6. The membership and support check

28)       To assist in the determination of two of the admissibility criteria specified in the Schedule, namely, whether 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit are members of the union (paragraph 36(1)(a)) and whether a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit (paragraph 36(1)(b)), the Panel proposed an independent check of the level of union membership within the proposed bargaining. It was agreed with the parties that the Employer would supply to the Case Manager a list of the names, dates of birth and job titles of workers within the proposed bargaining unit, and that the Union would supply to the Case Manager a list of its paid-up members within that unit (including their dates of birth). It was explicitly agreed with both parties that, to preserve confidentiality, the respective lists would not be copied to the other party. These arrangements were confirmed in a letter dated 28 April 2025 from the Case Manager to both parties.

29)       The information requested was received by the CAC from the Employer on 30 April 2025 and from the Union on 2 May 2025. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.   

30)       The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 44 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 30 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 29 a membership level of 65.91%.

31)       A report of the result of the membership and support check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 6 May 2025 and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by noon on 9 May 2025.

7. Summary of the Employer’s comments following the membership and support check

32)       The Employer said that it doubted that the majority of workers in the proposed bargaining unit would support “NUJ recognition for collective bargaining purposes.” The Employer continued by saying “many employees are probably aware that given we currently operate on a performance-based pay system, collective bargaining for pay will no doubt result in depressed pay for some employees.  The employer has not gathered evidence of this at this point.  However, the employer considers that employees must be aware that high performing employees who are currently eligible to receive higher pay on performance related pay structures are likely to be disadvantaged under the pay structures that would be reached by NUJ collective bargaining. Flat rate annual increases are likely to only benefit a relatively small number of lower performers and have the potential to have an adverse effect on the majority who are average and higher performers. This is something that we believe will be known to some of the workers in the proposed bargaining units. Collective bargaining for pay is therefore likely to be perceived as having a potentially detrimental effect on many people’s pay leading to inequality and inequity amongst employees within the STMJ group because the rest of the STMJ group would remain on existing performance related pay structures. For this reason, we do not believe that a majority of employees (who are the ones who are performing well or above) would support collective bargaining.”

33)       The Employer said that the Union had ran “a very prominent recruitment campaign within the proposed bargaining unit” which the Employer said emphasised the benefits of union membership and offered attractive discounted subscription rates. The Employer said “it is likely that many NUJ members are recent recruits and have been attracted by these benefits.  They are not likely to support collective bargaining for NUJ (even as new NUJ members) when the consequences for their performance related pay becomes clear to them.  For these reasons recognition is likely to have minority support even within the NUJ membership because it will become clear very quickly that the NUJ’s pay strategy does not tend to benefit them as individuals within a high performing work environment of Elsevier.”

8. Summary of the Union’s comments following the membership and support check

34)       The Union said that it accepted the contents of the report and did not have any further comments to make.

9. Considerations

35)       In determining whether to accept the application the Panel must decide whether the admissibility and validity provisions referred to in paragraph 4 above are satisfied.  The Panel has considered carefully the submissions of both parties and all the evidence in reaching its decision. 

36)       The Panel is satisfied that the Union made a valid request to the Employer within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9 of the Schedule and that its application was made in accordance with paragraph 11. Furthermore, the Panel is satisfied that the application is not rendered inadmissible by any of the provisions in paragraphs 33 to 35 and paragraphs 37 to 42 of the Schedule. The remaining issues for the Panel to decide are whether the admissibility criteria contained in paragraphs 36(1)(a) and paragraph 36(1)(b) are met.

Paragraph 36(1)(a)

37)       Under paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule an application is not admissible unless the Panel decides that members of the union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit.  References to the bargaining unit are to the bargaining unit proposed by the Union.  This is the unit against which the admissibility and validity tests are applied.  In their respective responses detailed above the parties have provided a lot of detail on the arguments surrounding the proposed bargaining unit. Whether or not the bargaining unit is appropriate is not an issue and will not be unless the application is accepted by the CAC.

38)       The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 28 to 31 above) showed that 65.91% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 29 above, the Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

39)       For the reasons set out in paragraph 38 above the Panel has decided that members of the union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit as required by paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule.

Paragraph 36(1)(b)

40)       Under paragraph 36(1) of the Schedule, an application is not admissible unless the Panel decides that a majority of the workers constituting the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit. The Panel notes the submissions of the Employer at paragraphs 32 and 33 above, however in the absence of evidence to the contrary, union membership provides a legitimate indicator of the views of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit as to whether they would be likely to favour recognition of the Union.

41)    On the basis of the evidence before it, the Panel has decided that, on the balance of probabilities, a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit, as required by paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule.

10. Decision

42)       For the reasons given in paragraphs 35-41 above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Mrs Lisa Gettins, Panel Chair

Mr Paul Noon OBE

Mrs Deborah England

19 May 2025

---

1. The Employer sent the response again on 1 March 2025 due to a send failure ↩

2. The Union has brought a separate application for the second bargaining unit case reference TUR1/1460(2025) NUJ & ELSEVIER LIMITED. ↩

3. The proposed bargaining unit in TUR1/1460(2025) NUJ & ELSEVIER LIMITED is the Editorial, Production, Marketing, Journal Office and Communications staff 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. That proposed bargaining unit is said to exclude The Lancet Leadership Team and the Executive Assistant. ↩