Decision

Bargaining Unit Decision

Updated 26 January 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1498(2025)

26 January 2026

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DETERMINATION OF THE BARGAINING UNIT

The Parties:

Prospect

and

Prime Focus Technologies UK Ltd (PFT)

1. Introduction

1)         Prospect (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 2 October 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Prime Focus Technologies UK Limited (PFT) (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “all UK based PFT staff working solely on the Channel 4 contract.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “PFT office at Leeds.” The Union stated that the reason for selecting the proposed bargaining unit was because “the employees in the bargaining unit work solely on providing services on the Channel 4 PFT contract. They are employed by PFT for this purpose and do not undertake duties on any other contract. We have 13 members working in the bargaining unit which currently comprises of 27 staff.” The application was received by the CAC on 2 October 2025, and the CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 2 October 2025. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 9 October 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 Rohan Pirani, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Mark Pennifold and Mr Sean Starbuck. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Joanne Curtis.

3)          By a decision dated 11 November 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.

2. Hearing

4)         A hearing was held via Zoom on 14 January 2026 and the names of those who attended the hearing are appended to this decision. Both parties provided brief written submissions prior to the hearing together with supporting documentation. The Panel would like to thank the parties for their written and oral submissions and for answering the questions raised by the Panel during the hearing.

3. Points of clarification prior to and at the hearing

5)         During the bargaining unit discussions, although no agreement was reached on the bargaining unit, the parties were able to clarify that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit included the operational roles of Media Operator, Senior Media Operator and Team Leader. This bargaining unit comprised of 27 roles. It was clarified that the Operations Manager (described as Systems Manager), a senior employee who would deputise for the Head of Operations and may be expected to take decisions on pay, hours and holidays, should not be included within the bargaining unit and that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit did not foresee this role as being included. The Employer agreed that the role of Team Leader (3 positions) fell within the Union’s proposed bargaining unit, however it argued that it would not be appropriate to include this role within the bargaining unit as Team Leaders have managerial responsibilities. The Union said that although it had included the role of Team Leader it would be prepared to agree to the removal of the Team Leader role from the proposed bargaining unit. In discussions the Union was also able to agree that the remaining positions in the proposed bargaining unit did not undertake work exclusively for Channel 4.

6)         It was therefore agreed that the proposed bargaining unit described by the Union was as follows: ‘Media Operators’ and ‘Senior Media Operators’ or any equivalent position, who are contractually based at PFT Leeds. The Employer accepted that this was by way of clarification as opposed to introducing a substantively different bargaining unit. Both the Union and the Employer agreed that the bargaining unit should include the role of Media Operator. The parties’ main dispute is whether or not it is appropriate to include the role of Senior Media Operator (covered by the Union’s definition). It was accepted that the CAC should take a common-sense approach about allowing some clarification during the application process provided that it did not materially alter the bargaining unit that the union was attempting to define.

4. Summary of the submissions made by the Union

7)         The Union said that it understood that there were no current national or local collective bargaining arrangements in place. It said that all workers in the proposed bargaining unit worked at Studio House, Leeds LS12 1AP. The Union said that it approached the Employer to discuss being able to represent members at the company for the purposes of collective bargaining on the 21 May 2025. The Union went on to say “we submitted a voluntary recognition request on the 10 June 2025. We met with James Macmillan, PFT Head of Operations, on the 7 August 2025 to discuss our request. On the 12 August we submitted to PFT a proposal for a draft recognition agreement. Receiving no formal response to this proposal, on the 2 October 2025 Prospect contacted the CAC to initiate the statutory process for trade union recognition.” The Union said that it understood that the Operational Team at Prime Focus Technologies UK Ltd (PFT) were responsible for ensuring that all content shown on Channel 4 and on Channel 4 online services was suitable for transmission, that it was of sufficient quality, met the required technical standards and complied with Ofcom regulations.

8)         The Union said that the Employer requested the removal of the Senior Media Operator role (4 positions) from the bargaining unit on the basis that this role involved “managerial responsibilities.” The Union said that it had agreed to the removal of the role of Team Leader from the bargaining unit but not the role of Senior Media Operator. The Union produced email correspondence between the parties setting out the various proposals and subsequent responses.

9)         The Union explained that its understanding of the Company structure and how it worked in practice was that “the Team Leaders were the Line Mangers for Media Operators. they allocate shifts and they are responsible for managing MOs and SMOs work allocation on a day-to-day basis.” During the course of the hearing, it was clarified that the Senior Media Operators allocate work to the Media Operators. Team Leaders line manage Media Operators but do not allocate work to Media Operators or Senior Media Operators. It was clarified that Team Leaders and Senior Media Operators are on the same shift pattern, so depending on who was on shift there may be instances where a Team Leader allocates work to a Media Operator. It was also clarified that any work allocated to Senior Media Operators and Team Leaders was done by the Operations Manager.

10)       The Union said that it wished to retain the role of Senior Media Operator in the proposed bargaining unit. The Union said that when discussing how the structure worked with its members who were Media Operators and Senior Media Operators, the Union’s view was that the Senior Media Operator role was one of a senior technical specialist. The Union said “SMOs are required to assist with training and development for MOs, they will undertake more technically challenging work, whilst SMOs do feed into management team meetings when required on the progress of work for clients, potential work allocation and training needs, SMOs do not have line management responsibility for MOs. SMOs would not be responsible for taking decisions relating to pay, hours or holidays for MO colleagues.”

11)       The Union provided a copy of the organisational structure at PFT and the relevant Media Operators and Senior Media Operators job descriptions that it had based its proposed bargaining unit on. During the hearing reference was made to the organisational structure and the Employer said that although the organisational structure was roughly the same as that provided by the Union there had been some slight changes. The Panel asked the Employer if a copy of the most up to date organisational structure could be produced to ensure everyone was working from the same document and this was duly circulated to those present at the hearing. The Union thereafter went on to say that the Media Operators job description highlighted that Media Operators reported to Team Leaders, rather than Senior Media Operators, and then ultimately to the Operations Manager. The Union said that as Senior Media Operators did not have any line management responsibilities for Media Operators “and did not take decisions relating to their hours, pay or other terms and conditions (we understand the responsibility for such decisions sits with the Head of Operations) we believe that it is reasonable to propose that MOs and SMOs form part of the same bargaining unit. We do not believe that including MOs and SMOs in a bargaining unit together is incompatible with effective management or that such a bargaining unit would create issues of conflict of interest.”

12)       The Union said that the Senior Media Operator role was viewed by its members as a direct progression from the Media Operator role, with closely aligned skill sets and terms and conditions. The Union said “the job descriptions we have access to for these roles (attached  entitled JD Media Operator and JD Senior Media Operator) detail a set of duties and key competencies that we believe overlap and evidence shared characteristics. Both MO and SMO roles ultimately report into the Operations Manager, who we understand will take decisions relating to their pay and other terms and conditions.”

13)       The Union said that any differences between the two roles did not mean that including them in the same bargaining unit would be inconsistent with effective management. The Union said that despite the different salary ranges and duties it would still not be incompatible with effective management to include them. The Union said it was normal to have different pay ranges on promotion. The Union added that pay, hours and holiday decisions were made by the Head of Operations in conjunction with Finance, HR and the Senior Operations Manager and that Senior Media Operators did not run the disciplinary process on behalf of them. The Union accepted that Senior Media Operators did provide feedback on any discipline issues but that it was normal for feedback to be given and for Team Leaders to consider it. The Union further accepted that although there was no guarantee of progression from the role of Media Operator to Senior Media Operator there was a natural line of progression and given how closely they worked together this would not make the proposed bargaining unit incompatible with effective management.

14)       The Union said that it had been informed by its members, who were both Media Operators and Senior Media Operators, that Senior Media Operators did pick up Media Operator duties where required and night shifts. The Union further said that there was a clear cross over in terms of skill set and shared characteristics making the proposed bargaining unit compatible with effective management. The Union went on to say that whilst overtime was allocated by the Senior Media Operators, they did not set the rate of pay for this overtime. The Senior Media Operators would ask who was available to undertake some overtime, but that this did not mean including both roles within a bargaining unit would be incompatible with effective management.

15)       The Union concluded by saying that it had a total of 13 members within a proposed bargaining unit of 24 (20 Media Operators and 4 Senior Media Operator roles). The Union added that it believed that a bargaining unit comprising of the roles of Media Operator and Senior Media Operator was consistent with its original application.

5. Summary of submissions made by the Employer

16)       The Employer said that its understanding was the bargaining unit as proposed and described by the Union consisted of “rota-based staff, namely Media Operators (“MOs”) and Senior Media Operators (“SMOs”) or any equivalent position who are contractually based at Prime Focus Technologies UK Ltd (“the Employer”) Leeds.”

17)       The Employer said that PFT were responsible for, among other things, the ingest, archive and delivery of all Channel 4 content seen on television and video on demand in the UK. The Employer confirmed that there were no current national or local collective bargaining arrangements in place at PFT. The Employer said that there were 20 Media Operators and 4 Senior Media Operators contractually based in Leeds, and that none of these worked solely on the Channel 4 contract. The Employer went on to say that in addition to the above roles there were three Team Leaders as well as a number of IT and sales roles some of which were home based. The Employer said that the Head of Operations was also based in Leeds. The Employer confirmed that they had a London location, but the Head Office was in Leeds.

18)       The Employer explained that the role of the Media Operator was to work directly with the content that was submitted to PFT before submission, and that the majority of their work was on the Channel 4 contract. The Employer said that Media Operators worked a 24/7 shift pattern including all bank holidays and weekends. The salary of the Media Operators took into account the fact that they were required to work nights and bank holidays. Media Operators were paid, on average £25,500 per annum depending on factors such as experience, tenure and capability. Media Operators reported to Team Leaders and that Team Leaders amongst other things managed the operational team and organised and prioritised work for the wider team.

19)       The Employer said that the Senior Media Operator role sat just above the Media Operator role. The Employer said that they were responsible for allocating work to the Media Operators and were paid on average £32,000. The Employer said that Senior Media Operators reported to the Operations Manager. The Employer explained that Senior Media Operators acted as the day to day first point of contact for the Media Operators and were also responsible for being in discussion with Channel 4 directly. The Employer said that it regarded Senior Media Operators as “Team Leaders in waiting” however they had no direct reports or line management responsibilities. The Employer emphasised that Senior Media Operators were not managed by Team Leaders and that both Senior Media Operators and Team Leaders reported to the Operations Manager. The Employer said that the pay band for Team Leaders and Senior Media Operators was different, with the Team Leaders being on a slightly higher pay scale to the Senior Media Operators. The Employer said that Senior Media Operators did not work on a 24/7 cycle but instead worked in a direct pattern with the Team Leaders. The Employer explained that Senior Media Operators and Team Leaders may occasionally work nights for example when there were elections but that this was voluntary and not the norm and that if a Senior Media Operator was on a night shift their role was not to pick up the work of the Media Operators but to coordinate. The Employer said that Senior Media Operators provided direct feedback on the Media Operators and very occasionally were required to undertake the same or similar work as the Media Operators. The Employer clarified that only the Head of Operations made direct decisions on pay however Senior Media Operators did make some decisions on the allocation of overtime but not the rate at which this overtime was paid. The Employer added that Senior Media Operators could informally approve holiday requests at short notice.

20)       The Employer disputed that the proposed bargaining unit was an appropriate bargaining unit stating that Senior Media Operators had a managerial role allocating work to Media Operators. The Employer said that Senior Media Operators also attended weekly management meetings where they discussed the performance of Media Operators with their Team Leaders, the Operations Manager and the Head of Operations and provided feedback of the Media Operators conduct, attendance and time keeping. The Employer said that a Senior Media Operators evaluation of a Media Operators performance formed the basis on which shift patterns, pay increases and dismissal decisions for Media Operators were made by the senior management. The Employer said that this meant there was a clear conflict of interest between Media Operators and Senior Media Operators.

21)       The Employer said that an appropriate bargaining unit would be the Media Operators based at the Employer’s Leeds office. The Employer said that the proposed bargaining unit was not compatible with effective management and that it would be inconsistent with effective management to include the Senior Media Operators. This was because of their role in managing the Media Operators’ work allocation as well as the fact that they provided recommendations to senior management on which basis Media Operators are assigned to shifts, considered for pay increases, performance managed, disciplined and dismissed for conduct and/ or capability. The Employer said that Senior Media Operators, were a Media Operator to be subject to a disciplinary or capability process, were not direct decision makers, but they did help flag or alert the senior manager to the facts. The Employer accepted that the task of the Panel in the first instance was to determine whether the proposed bargaining unit was an appropriate unit, rather than whether it was the most appropriate unit. However, it said that paragraph 19(4) makes clear that consideration of the unit put forward by the Employer may be of significance to the assessment of the appropriateness of the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer argued that the fact that there was an available bargaining unit which did not suffer from the flaws of the proposed bargaining unit and did not give rise to the same concerns as to divisiveness and inappropriate exclusions, highlighted the inappropriate nature of the proposed bargaining unit.

22)       The Employer said that whilst the view of the Union was to be taken into account, no cogent justification had been advanced for the inclusions of the Senior Media Operators in the proposed bargaining unit. Further, the Employer said that it was apparent that the proposed bargaining unit had been advanced on the basis of some misunderstanding of the factual position. “A clear example is the assertion in Andrew Sturtevant’s email from 8 December 2025 that the SMOs would still undertake similar technical work [to the MOs] but the more complex tasks, and provide guidance to MOs, whilst Team Leads would focus on coordinating work. This is incorrect as the SMOs primary role is to allocate work to MOs based on their level of training and expertise, ensure appropriately qualified MOs are present during any shift, provide one-to-one feedback to the MOs about their performance and report about the MOs performance, conduct and development to the Team Leaders, Operations Manager and Head of Operations. While SMOs can, in exceptional circumstances, be asked to support MOs in their work, their responsibility is not to undertake similar work or regularly perform more complex tasks. Performing more difficult technical work used to be the role of an SMO prior to an internal re-designation of the position in October 2024 but this is no longer an accurate reflection of the work SMOs are expected to perform; the role of SMO is now a junior managerial position.”

23)       The Employer again reiterated that the role of Senior Media Operator had been created as a role on a managerial pathway to senior positions such as Teams Leaders and Operations Manager. Whilst not assigned direct line management over individual Media Operators the Employer said that Senior Media Operators took a managerial role over the day-to-day work allocation for Media Operators and were instrumental in evaluating the work of the Media Operators both to senior management and in one-to-one feedback sessions to the Media Operators themselves. The Employer said that the Senior Media Operator role was closer to that of a Team Leader and Operations Manager than it was to the role of a Media Operator and that it had in fact been created as a pathway to those positions. The Employer agreed that decisions on pay were made centrally by the Head of Operations, HR and the Finance Team and that neither Team Leaders nor the Operations Manager were involved in pay decisions.

24)       The Employer agreed that decisions over the Senior Media Operators and Media Operators pay, hours and holidays was made centrally, but that they were nevertheless distinct from one another. The Employer explained that Media Operators were essentially working with the content sent to the Employer by Channel 4 after allocation to them by Senior Media Operators, whereas the Senior Media Operators were in constant communication with Channel 4 themselves in order to review what work was in the pipeline, what needed to be prioritized and what work should be allocated to individual Media Operators based on expertise, urgency and training. The Employer said that whilst the Senior Media Operator contract provided for the possibility of night shift work, this was not done in practice. The Employer said that Senior Media Operators worked either the early or the late shift covering a period between 6.45am to midnight to mirror Channel 4’s operating hours (7am to 11pm). This was the same shift pattern as Team Leaders. By contrast, the Employer said Media Operators regularly worked shift patterns across the early, late and night shifts. The Employer said that Senior Media Operators and Team Leaders had identical shift patterns whereas Media Operators had their own, unique shift rota and therefore including the Senior Media Operators in the proposed bargaining unit would render it incompatible with effective management. The Employer concluded by saying that the role of Senior Media Operator was created as a pathway to senior management positions such as Team Leaders and Operations Manager. It said that the role of a Senior Media Operator closely resembled that of a Team Leader in terms of function, pay, shift patterns and managerial responsibility, and was distinct from Media Operators in all of those aspects. The Employer said “there are four SMO roles and three Team Leader roles compared to 20 MO roles. The bargaining position of the four SMOs who aspire to transition to Team Leader roles is fundamentally different to the bargaining position of the 20 MOs and the SMOs inclusion would prevent effective management of the PBU.”

6. Considerations

25)       The Panel begins with the statutory framework. 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:

(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.

26)       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 consider 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 “In 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.”

27)       In reaching its decision the Panel has taken account of the views of the Union and the Employer as expressed in their written submissions, responses to questions and oral submissions during the hearing. The centrality of the dispute was compatibility or otherwise with effective management.

28)       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. That does not require the Panel to determine whether it is the most appropriate bargaining unit; only whether it is appropriate. This is the overriding requirement under 19B(2) and relates principally to the matters to be collectively bargained for under the statutory regime, namely pay, hours and holidays. The requirement is that the proposed bargaining unit would be compatible with effective management, not that it be compatible with the most effective management. Against the background of that overall responsibility the Panel has to consider the matters listed in paragraph 19B(3) of the Schedule, reminding itself that these matters must not conflict with the need for the unit to be compatible with effective management.

29)       The Panel notes that the statutory test is set at the comparatively modest level of appropriateness, rather than of the optimum or best possible outcome (see R (on the application of Kwik-Fit (GB) Ltd) v Central Arbitration Committee [2002] EWCA Civ 512, [2002] IRLR 395, [2002] ICR 1212, CA, per Buxton LJ). The Panel should not reject the Union’s proposed bargaining unit because it considers that a different unit would be more appropriate nor, in considering whether it is compatible with effective management, should the Panel consider whether it is the most effective or desirable unit in that context.

30)       The Panel notes that Senior Media Operators are not part of the management team. Like Media Operators, Senior Media Operators have no reports. They are not responsible for discipline. They have no direct decision-making power over the levels of pay for Media Operators and are not responsible for shift allocations. The job description of a Senior Media Operator does not include direct managerial responsibility for the Media Operators.

31)       It is not unusual for roles within the same bargaining unit to have different terms relating to hours, holidays and pay. It is also relatively common to have different levels of seniority within the same bargaining unit. Even though the situation does not arise here, there is no reason, as a matter of principle, to exclude those in managerial positions from a bargaining unit which includes roles reporting to them. The roles are located at the same location. The central issue is compatibility with effective management. There is nothing we have seen which would indicate that the inclusion of the two roles is incompatible with effective management. In particular, there is nothing approaching a substantive conflict of interest. The numbers involved are relatively small. The fact that the Senior Media Operator is regarded as the natural progression point from that of a Media Operator is a reason why they both ought to be included in the same bargaining unit.

32)       The Panel considers that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit is compatible with effective management. The Panel considers that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit consists of a readily identifiable group of workers. The Panel notes that decisions relating to pay, hours and holiday entitlement are made by Senior Management within the Company and that there are currently no management structures in place to which the Union’s proposed bargaining unit would present a difficulty.

33)       The Panel notes that the Employer tried during the hearing to put forward an explanation as to why the Union’s proposed bargaining unit would not be compatible with effective management, if Senior Media Operators were to be included. The Panel appreciates that a bargaining unit covering Media Operators only may have its attractions for the Employer but, as stated in paragraph 28 above, the Panel’s role is not to decide whether another bargaining unit would be more appropriate than that proposed by the Union.

34)       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. In relation to existing national and local bargaining arrangements, there are no bargaining arrangements of either description in place. In relation to the desirability of avoiding small, fragmented bargaining units within an undertaking, the Union’s proposed bargaining unit would be the sole bargaining unit within the Employer. There is no evidence of any demand for recognition for collective bargaining purposes on the part of other workers within the workforce and as a consequence no evidence of a risk of fragmentation of collective bargaining. The Panel also notes that based on the Employer’s figures the proposed bargaining unit currently consists of 20 Media Operators and 4 Senior Media Operators. As far as the characteristics of workers are concerned, all those within the Union’s proposed bargaining unit are operational and have no role within the Employer’s disciplinary and grievance procedures or other managerial responsibilities. All the workers in the proposed bargaining unit are based at a single location. The Panel has had regard to the object set out in paragraph 171 of the Schedule in reaching its decision.

7. Decision

35)       The Panel’s decision is that the appropriate bargaining unit as clarified by the parties during negotiations and at the hearing is: “Media Operators and Senior Media Operators or any equivalent position who are contractually based at PFT Leeds.” It is noted that the role of Team Leader has been omitted from the bargaining unit description and that workers do not work solely on the Channel 4 contract, however, as mentioned in detail at Paragraphs 5 and 6 of this decision, the Panel believe that clarification during the application process has not materially altered the bargaining unit that the union was attempting to define. For the purposes of clarity this bargaining unit does not include Team Leaders, Operations Manager and Head of UK Operations.”

Panel

Mr Rohan Pirani, Panel Chair

Mr Mark Pennifold

Mr Sean Starbuck

26 January 2026