Decision

Bargaining Unit Decision

Updated 15 October 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1565(2026)

15 October 2026

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DETERMINATION OF THE BARGAINING UNIT

The Parties:

UNISON, Unite the Union

and

AMG Scot Ltd

1. Introduction

1)         UNISON and Unite the Union (together, “the Unions”) submitted an application to the Central Arbitration Committee (“the CAC”) on 29 April 2026 seeking recognition for collective bargaining by AMG Scot Ltd (“the Employer”). The Unions proposed a bargaining unit comprising: “Employees of AMG Scot Ltd employed in the Grampian area, specifically at the practices of Saltoun, Central Buchan, Portsoy, and Alford.” The location of the proposed bargaining unit was described as the Employer’s GP practices in the Grampian area, namely Saltoun, Central Buchan, Portsoy and Alford. In support of its proposed bargaining unit, the Unions submitted that recent recruitment advertisements demonstrated that the Employer regarded the four practices as a cohesive management unit. It referred in particular to an advertisement for a salaried GP at Fraserburgh, also known as Saltoun, which stated that the practice “will be merging with all the other Grampian sites to form one large group”, and an advertisement for Advanced Nurse Practitioners (“ANPs”) inviting applications for positions at any of the four sites. The CAC notified both parties of receipt of the application on 29 April 2026. The Employer submitted its response, dated 18 May 2026, to the CAC, and a copy was provided to the Unions.

2)         In accordance with section 263 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (“the Act”), the Chair of the CAC established a Panel to deal with the case. The Panel consisted of Mr Paul Swann, Panel Chair, and Mr Alistair Paton and Dr Steve Jary as Members. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Medina Mia.

3)         By a decision dated 15 July 2026, the Panel accepted the Unions’ application. The parties then entered a period of negotiation in an attempt to agree the appropriate bargaining unit. As no agreement was reached, the parties were invited to provide and exchange written submissions addressing the determination of the appropriate bargaining unit.

2. Hearing

4)         A hearing was held by video conference on 5 October 2026. The names of those who attended are appended to this decision. Both parties provided written submissions and supporting documentation before the hearing. The Panel would like to thank the parties for their written and oral submissions and for answering the questions raised during the hearing.

3. Points of clarification prior to and at the hearing

5)         The parties did not reach agreement on the appropriate bargaining unit during the negotiation period. However, both parties set out their respective positions in correspondence and written submissions to the CAC.

6)         The Employer stated that, in its view, “there are 0 employees who fall within the Unions’ proposed bargaining unit”. It did not agree with the Unions proposed bargaining unit and did not consider that any employees fell within the unit as defined by the Unions.

7)         The Unions were invited to comment on the Employer’s position. In response, the Unions pointed out that the Employer’s response identified 23 workers at two practices in specified roles. The Unions submitted that its proposed bargaining unit covered all employees of the Employer at the four named practices and therefore included at least the 23 workers identified by the Employer, as well as other employees. It further submitted that the absence of specific job titles from its proposed definition was not material, as the application sought recognition for all employees within the specified geographical area and practices.

8)         The principal dispute between the parties concerned whether the appropriate bargaining unit should comprise employees across all four practices identified by the Unions or whether, as the Employer proposed in the alternative, separate bargaining units should be established for each practice.

9)         Shortly before the hearing, the Employer submitted four additional documents relating to the individual practices. The Employer explained that these documents comprised summaries and business cases concerning the dates on which the practices had been taken over and were intended to demonstrate that the practices had operated as individual businesses, including in relation to bidders and suppliers. The Unions objected to the documents being considered because it had not previously received them and had therefore been unable to comment on their contents. The Panel noted that the documents were dated 2023 and that the specific business cases had not been referred to in the Employer’s written submissions. The Employer explained that the documents had been provided at that stage due to an oversight. Having considered the circumstances, the Panel decided that the hearing would proceed based on the written submissions submitted in accordance with the timetable and the oral evidence and submissions made at the hearing. The Panel did not admit or consider the four additional documents in reaching its decision.

4. Summary of the submissions made by the Unions

10)       The Unions proposed a single bargaining unit comprising all employees of the Employer working at its four GP practices within the NHS Grampian area: Central Buchan, Saltoun (also referred to as Fraserburgh), Portsoy and Alford. The Unions submitted that the proposed bargaining unit was appropriate and compatible with effective management.

11)       At the hearing, the Unions explained that NHS Grampian commissioned a number of GP practices, not all of which were operated directly by the NHS. The four practices within the proposed bargaining unit had been put out to tender and were operated by the Employer. The Unions stated that, since 2025, employees had raised issues which it considered remained unresolved and that discussions had taken place concerning the potential benefits of trade union recognition. It also referred to discussions with the Employer, including its Regional Manager, although it considered that those discussions had not resolved the matters raised.

12)       The Unions submitted that the proposed bargaining unit reflected organisational coherence across the four practices. It relied on the fact that the practices operated under arrangements with the same commissioner, NHS Grampian, and that the four practices comprised all the Employer’s GP practices within that commissioning area. The Unions also relied on what it understood to be a common regional management structure, including the Regional Manager’s responsibilities across the four practices. It referred to correspondence with the CAC having been conducted through the Regional Manager as evidence of that wider oversight.

13)       The Unions further relied on the Employer’s recruitment arrangements. It referred to advertisements for ANPs dated 15 January 2026 and 25 March 2026, which it submitted invited applications for positions across multiple sites within Grampian and referred to flexibility between those sites. It also relied on an advertisement for a salaried GP at Fraserburgh/Saltoun which stated that the practice “will be merging with all the other Grampian sites to form one large group”. The Unions submitted that these advertisements supported its position that the four practices were regarded as sufficiently connected for recruitment purposes and were being presented to prospective employees as part of a wider group.

14)       In response to the Employer’s explanation that the advertisements were historic or rolling advertisements which it had not posted in the form relied upon by the Unions, the Unions maintained that they remained relevant evidence of how the practices had been presented to prospective employees. It also noted that the advertisements had appeared on the NHS Scotland jobs platform. The Unions submitted that the references to multiple sites and the formation of a larger group were inconsistent with the Employer’s contention that the practices operated entirely independently.

15)       The Unions addressed the Employer’s statement that it had no intention of operating the practices as a single integrated site. It submitted that it had never contended that the four practices would become a single geographical workplace. Rather, its position was that employees working at different locations could nevertheless form an appropriate bargaining unit where there were sufficient organisational coherence and a common management framework. The Unions submitted that geographical separation, different opening hours and local arrangements did not, in themselves, make a single bargaining unit incompatible with effective management.

16)       The Unions also referred to the Employer’s consideration of centralising certain administrative functions across the practices. It submitted that this supported its position that there was an element of common administration across the four sites. In response to the Employer’s statement that any centralised administrative functions would not alter the employment arrangements of existing staff, the Unions submitted that this did not determine whether the proposed bargaining unit was appropriate. It also addressed the Employer’s suggestion that any remote hub positions would be subject to separate recruitment, submitting that separate recruitment processes would not, in themselves, prevent employees from being included within a common bargaining unit.

17)       In relation to the views of the parties, the Unions supported the proposed single bargaining unit. It submitted that the Employer’s alternative proposal of four separate bargaining units would create unnecessary fragmentation and require collective bargaining matters to be addressed separately at each practice. The Unions opposed the alternative proposal when it was raised at the hearing.

18)       In relation to existing national and local bargaining arrangements, the Unions submitted that there were no existing national or local collective bargaining agreements. It nevertheless relied on the fact that the proposed unit comprised all the Employer’s GP practices within the NHS Grampian commissioning area. The Unions submitted that the absence of existing collective bargaining arrangements did not weigh against the proposed unit and that recognition would provide a mechanism for collective employee voice across the four practices.

19)       In relation to the desirability of avoiding small, fragmented bargaining units, the Unions submitted that a single bargaining unit would avoid dividing employees according to their individual practice locations. It considered that separate bargaining units would create unnecessary fragmentation within the Employer’s undertaking.

20)       In relation to the characteristics of the workers, the Unions submitted that employees across the four practices undertook broadly similar categories of work, including GP, ANP, nursing and administrative roles. It considered that the employees shared common occupational characteristics, notwithstanding differences in their particular roles and geographical locations. The Unions also relied on the common commissioning arrangements and recruitment advertisements as evidence of a relationship between the practices.

21)       In relation to the location of the workers, the Unions submitted that all four practices were situated within the NHS Grampian area, which it regarded as a recognised geographical and commissioning area. It considered that this supported the inclusion of employees at all four practices within one bargaining unit.

22)       In relation to compatibility with effective management, the Unions submitted that the common commissioning arrangements, regional management oversight and shared administrative arrangements demonstrated sufficient organisational coherence to support a single bargaining unit. It stated that the Regional Manager had responsibility for all four practices and that matters which could not be resolved at practice level could be escalated to the Regional Manager or a director. The Unions accepted that the practices were geographically separate and had different opening hours and local arrangements but submitted that these differences did not prevent them from forming a single bargaining unit for collective bargaining purposes.

23)       Finally, the Unions referred to the Scottish Government’s Fair Work First policy and submitted that it emphasised the importance of employee voice, including collective voice, in organisations receiving Scottish Government funding. The Unions stated that there was no existing mechanism for collective employee voice within the Employer and submitted that trade union recognition would provide such a mechanism. It considered that this supported its proposal for a single bargaining unit across the four practices.

5. Summary of the submissions made by the Employer

24)       The Employer opposed the Unions proposed bargaining unit on the basis that it was not appropriate within the meaning of Schedule A1 to the Act. It submitted that the proposed unit was incompatible with effective management and did not reflect the operational structure of its organisation. Although it accepted that the four practices were under common ownership, it maintained that each practice operated as a distinct operational unit. As an alternative, the Employer proposed four separate bargaining units, one for each practice.

25)       The Employer explained that it had initially taken over one practice in 2021 and subsequently acquired three further practices, principally in 2023 and 2024. It submitted that the practices had operated as separate businesses before being brought within the wider organisation and that a significant proportion of the existing staff had remained employed at their respective practices following the takeovers.

26)       The Employer described the practices as having particular operational challenges, including recruitment difficulties and budgetary pressures. It stated that consultations had taken place with the Board and staff concerning proposed contractual changes. Following those consultations, the proposed changes were not pursued because they were considered unsustainable. The Employer disputed the Unions’ characterisation of the discussions which had taken place and submitted that no changes had ultimately been made to employees’ contractual arrangements as a result of those proposals.

27)       The Employer submitted that each practice had separate operational management, clinical leadership, staffing and rota arrangements, patient demographics, service requirements and supervision structures. Employees were, it said, primarily recruited, supervised, managed and rostered locally within their respective practices. The Employer maintained that employees did not routinely work across the four sites and that there was no interchange of employees between them.

28)       The Employer acknowledged that a Regional Manager and directors exercised oversight across the organisation. However, it submitted that the existence of an overarching management structure did not mean that the practices constituted a single operational or workforce unit. Day-to-day decisions concerning staffing, recruitment, rotas and other operational matters were primarily made at practice level. The Employer stated that matters could be escalated to the Regional Manager or a director where they could not be resolved locally or where the seriousness of the matter required wider involvement.

29)       The Employer relied on the separate responsibilities of the Practice Managers. It identified four Practice Managers and described their responsibilities as including staffing, clinical and administrative rotas, recruitment, complaints, administration, finance and payroll. It stated that each practice had its own clinical lead and local management arrangements, and that clinical and administrative staff ordinarily worked within those local structures.

30)       The Employer also relied on the contractual and administrative arrangements at each practice. It submitted that employees were employed under contracts associated with their respective practice locations and that these arrangements reflected the distinct operational structures of the sites. In oral evidence, the Employer clarified that employees did not all have NHS contracts based on NHS terms and conditions. Although it acknowledged similarities between some contractual terms, it stated that there were also variations reflecting different roles, experience, local circumstances and operational requirements. It submitted that pay, and other terms could be considered on an individual basis and that different local pay scales operated across the practices.

31)       The Employer stated that staff at Alford were employed under contracts named under Alford Medical Group; staff at Saltoun under Saltoun Medical Practice; staff at Central Buchan under Central Buchan Medical Practice; and staff at Portsoy, also referred to as An Caorann, under An Caorann Medical Practice. The Employer explained that the relevant Practice Manager would ordinarily meet prospective employees and deal with matters such as references and proposed terms and conditions. Where a decision required further consideration, it could be referred to the Regional Manager or a director.

32)       In addition to contractual arrangements, the Employer referred to separate payroll arrangements, pension and practice codes, submissions and invoicing arrangements, and practice-specific office administration. It also relied on the separate clinical and administrative rota arrangements at each practice. The Employer submitted that these features demonstrated that employees remained aligned to their individual practice locations rather than operating as part of a single integrated workforce.

33)       The Employer further relied on the fact that each practice had its own NHS Scotland practice code. It submitted that the practices were separately recognised for NHS operational and payment purposes, with services and payments allocated by reference to the individual practice code. The Employer stated that the continued existence of four separate practice codes reflected the fact that the practices had not been formally merged into a single practice. It also referred to differences in patient demographics, staffing levels, service requirements and opening hours, including extended opening hours at one practice which did not apply at the others. The Employer submitted that these differences required each practice to retain local operational flexibility.

34)       The Employer stated that complaints and other issues were generally dealt with locally in the first instance. Ordinary complaints would normally be handled by the relevant Practice Manager, while clinical complaints could be referred to the Clinical Lead. Matters which remained unresolved or were sufficiently serious could be escalated to the Regional Manager or a director. The Employer gave examples of more serious clinical, reputational and regulatory matters which might require such escalation, including complaints which could ultimately be referred to the Ombudsman. It also explained that disciplinary or conduct matters could involve external advice before being escalated where appropriate. The Employer submitted that this hierarchy demonstrated that the practices were distinct operational units within an overarching management structure.

35)       The Employer addressed the Unions’ reliance on the recruitment advertisements referring to multiple sites and the formation of a larger group. In response to questions from the Panel about advertisements dated 15 January 2026 and 25 March 2026, the Employer stated that it had not itself posted the advertisements in the form relied upon by the Unions. It described them as rolling advertisements which had originated earlier, including in 2024, and stated that they had appeared on websites without its knowledge. It had subsequently requested their removal.

36)       The Employer submitted that the advertisements reflected recruitment flexibility, strategic ownership arrangements or limited administrative collaboration rather than a fully integrated operational workforce. In relation to the wording that the practices would be “merging” or forming “one large group”, the Employer stated that the wording had not been agreed with the relevant practice and had historically been removed. It did not accept that the wording represented its current operational intentions. The Employer maintained that the possibility of bringing the practices together had been considered but had not proceeded.

37)       The Employer also addressed the potential centralisation of certain administrative functions. It stated that the possibility of a centralised arrangement had been considered approximately six months before the hearing but had not been regarded as feasible, including because of geographical and IT considerations. It stated that it had been agreed with NHS Grampian that the arrangement would not proceed. The Employer maintained that any future administrative hub would be separately staffed through direct recruitment and that existing employees would remain attached to their respective practice locations. According to the Employer, employees’ contractual terms, reporting lines and principal places of work would not change unless they voluntarily applied for and accepted positions within any future hub structure. It submitted that operational management would remain site based.

38)       The Employer did not accept that cross-site recruitment advertisements demonstrated the existence of a single bargaining unit. It submitted that an applicant’s ability to apply for a role at one or more sites did not mean that an employee appointed to one site would work across all four practices. It maintained that employees remained subject to local management and supervision arrangements and that the practices continued to have distinct operational requirements and workforce needs.

39)       The Employer submitted that a single bargaining unit could create practical difficulties because collective bargaining would need to accommodate different Practice Managers, contractual arrangements, pay arrangements, rotas and local operational requirements. It considered that grouping the practices together could create an artificial bargaining structure, lead to operational inefficiencies and reduce the flexibility required to respond to local service delivery needs.

40)       The Employer’s primary position was that the Unions proposed bargaining unit should be rejected. Without prejudice to that position, it submitted that, if the CAC determined that a bargaining unit should be recognised, four separate bargaining units, each comprising employees working at an individual practice, would be more appropriate. It maintained that this alternative would better reflect the existing local management structures, contractual and payroll arrangements, staffing arrangements and operational requirements.

6. Relevant legislation as to determination of the bargaining unit

41)       Under paragraph 19(2) of Schedule A1 to the Act (“the Schedule”), where an application for recognition has been accepted and the parties have been unable to agree the bargaining unit, the CAC must decide whether the Unions proposed bargaining unit is appropriate. Under paragraph 19(3), if the CAC decides that the proposed bargaining unit is not appropriate, it must decide a bargaining unit that is appropriate.

42)       Paragraph 19B(2) of the Schedule provides that, in deciding whether a bargaining unit is appropriate, the CAC must take into account the need for the unit to be compatible with effective management and the matters listed in paragraph 19B(3), so far as they do not conflict with that need.

43)       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.

44)       Paragraph 19B(4) provides that, in taking an employer’s views into account when 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.

7. Considerations

45)       The Panel has considered the Unions proposed bargaining unit comprising all employees of the Employer employed at the practices of Saltoun, Central Buchan, Portsoy and Alford. It has also considered the Employer’s opposition to that proposal and its alternative proposal for four separate bargaining units, one for each practice.

46)       In accordance with paragraph 19B(2) of the Schedule, the Panel has first considered whether the Unions proposed bargaining unit is compatible with effective management. It has then considered the matters listed in paragraph 19B(3), so far as they do not conflict with that requirement. The Panel has assessed the parties’ submissions and the evidence, rather than treating any individual factor as determinative.

47)       The Panel recognises that the four practices have separate locations and retain distinct operational features. The Employer’s evidence was that day-to-day management of staffing, recruitment, rotas, payroll and other operational matters is primarily undertaken by the Practice Manager at each site. The practices also have their own clinical leadership, practice codes and local arrangements, and employees do not routinely work across the four sites. The Panel accepts that these features are relevant to the question of compatibility with effective management.

48)       However, the evidence also indicates that the four practices form part of the same employing organisation, AMG Scot Ltd, and are subject to an overarching management structure which includes a Regional Manager and directors. The Employer acknowledged that matters which cannot be resolved locally, or which require wider oversight, may be escalated to that level. The Panel considers that the existence of separate Practice Managers and local operational arrangements does not, by itself, establish that collective bargaining across the four practices would be incompatible with effective management.

49)       The Employer submitted that a single bargaining unit would create difficulties because the practices have different contractual arrangements, pay arrangements, staffing requirements, rotas, opening hours and service needs. The Panel recognises that these differences would need to be accommodated in collective bargaining and that a single bargaining unit would not remove the need to consider practice-specific issues. However, the Panel is not persuaded that the differences identified necessarily prevent collective bargaining from taking place across the four practices. The existence of local operational responsibilities does not, on its own, require bargaining to be conducted through separate bargaining units.

50)       The Panel has also considered the parties’ evidence concerning the contractual and administrative arrangements at the four practices. The Employer stated that contracts were associated with individual practices and that pay and other terms could vary according to role, experience and local circumstances. It also relied on separate payroll arrangements, practice codes and administrative processes. The Unions, by contrast, relied on the practices’ common ownership, their connection with NHS Grampian and it’s understanding that certain employment arrangements were common across the sites.

51)       The Panel has not been provided with sufficient evidence to conclude that all employees across the four practices are subject to identical contractual terms and conditions or pay arrangements. It therefore recognises that the contractual and administrative arrangements identified by the Employer are relevant to the way in which the practices operate. However, the Panel considers that differences in contractual terms and administrative arrangements do not necessarily determine the appropriate bargaining unit. The relevant question is whether, in the circumstances of this case, the proposed bargaining unit is compatible with effective management and appropriate having regard to the statutory factors.

52)       The Panel has considered the parties’ evidence concerning the recruitment advertisements and the possible centralisation of administrative functions. The Unions relied on advertisements referring to recruitment across multiple sites and to the prospect of the practices forming one large group. The Employer disputed the significance of those advertisements and stated that the wording did not represent its current operational intentions. It also stated that the possibility of combining the practices had been considered but had not proceeded.

53)       The Panel does not regard the recruitment advertisements as conclusive evidence that the four practices operate as a single integrated workforce. In particular, an advertisement referring to recruitment across several sites does not, without more, establish that employees routinely work across those sites or are managed through identical arrangements. Nevertheless, the advertisements form part of the evidence concerning the relationship between the practices and the manner in which recruitment across them has been presented. The Panel has considered them alongside the other evidence and has not treated them as determinative of the appropriate bargaining unit.

54)       In relation to the views of the parties, the Panel notes that the Unions support a single bargaining unit across the four practices, whereas the Employer considers that four separate bargaining units would better reflect their operational arrangements. The Panel has taken both positions into account. However, neither party’s preference is determinative, and the Panel must reach its decision by applying the statutory framework to the evidence.

55)       In relation to existing national and local bargaining arrangements, the Unions submitted that there were no existing national or local collective bargaining agreements. The Panel has not been presented with evidence of existing collective bargaining arrangements that would require the proposed bargaining unit to be aligned with a different bargaining structure. The absence of existing collective bargaining arrangements does not, in itself, weigh decisively for or against either proposal.

56)       In relation to the desirability of avoiding small, fragmented bargaining units within an undertaking, the Panel has considered the Unions’ submission that separate bargaining units would divide employees according to their practice locations and could require similar matters to be addressed separately. The Employer submitted that separate bargaining units would better reflect the differences between the practices. The Panel recognises the operational distinctions identified by the Employer. However, it considers that four separate bargaining units would divide the workforce by location and require collective bargaining to be conducted separately for each practice. In the circumstances of this case, the Panel considers that the Unions’ proposal would avoid that fragmentation while allowing practice-specific matters to be addressed as necessary.

57)       In relation to the characteristics of the workers, the Panel notes that the proposed bargaining unit includes employees undertaking clinical and non-clinical roles at the four GP practices. The Employer submitted that staffing requirements and employment terms vary between practices and according to the roles and circumstances of individual employees. The Panel accepts that the employees do not necessarily perform identical duties or have identical contractual terms. However, all are employed by the same organisation in connection with the operation of the four practices. The Panel does not consider that differences in individual roles, experience or contractual arrangements, on the evidence before it, require the employees to be divided into separate bargaining units.

58)       In relation to the location of the workers, the Panel recognises that the practices operate from separate sites and serve different patient populations. The Employer submitted that geographical separation, differing opening hours and distinct local service requirements were significant operational considerations. The Panel accepts that these matters may have practical implications for the handling of local issues and the arrangements for collective bargaining. However, geographical separation alone does not establish that a single bargaining unit is inappropriate. The Panel has considered location alongside the organisational structure, operational arrangements and other statutory factors.

59)       The Panel has also considered the Unions’ reference to the Scottish Government’s Fair Work First policy and its emphasis on employee voice. The Panel has taken this submission into account as part of the Unions’ wider case. However, the Panel’s determination must be made in accordance with the statutory framework in Schedule A1 and the evidence relevant to the appropriateness of the proposed bargaining unit. The policy reference does not determine the outcome of that assessment.

60)       The Panel has considered the Employer’s alternative proposal for four separate bargaining units, each comprising employees at an individual practice. The Panel recognises that this proposal reflects the local management arrangements and the differences in contractual, administrative and operational matters identified by the Employer. However, the Panel is not persuaded that those differences necessarily require separate bargaining units or that they could not be accommodated within a single bargaining unit. It considers that the alternative proposal would introduce fragmentation by dividing employees according to their practice location, notwithstanding that all four practices form part of the same employing organisation and are subject to overarching management oversight.

61)       Having considered the parties’ submissions and the evidence as a whole, the Panel concludes that the Unions proposed bargaining unit is compatible with effective management. The Panel recognises the distinct local arrangements at each practice but considers that these do not outweigh the evidence of an overarching organisational and management structure or establish that collective bargaining across the four practices would be unworkable. Having then considered the matters listed in paragraph 19B(3) of the Schedule, so far as they do not conflict with the requirement of compatibility with effective management, the Panel concludes that the Unions proposed bargaining unit is appropriate.

62)       In reaching this conclusion, the Panel has taken account of the Employer’s alternative proposal for four separate bargaining units. For the reasons set out above, the Panel is not persuaded that the alternative would be more appropriate in the circumstances of this case.

8. Decision

63)       For the reasons set out in the Considerations section above, the Panel determines that the bargaining unit proposed by the Unions is appropriate.

64)       The appropriate bargaining unit is:

All employees of AMG Scot Ltd employed in the Grampian area at the practices of Saltoun, Central Buchan, Portsoy and Alford.

65)       The Panel has considered the Employer’s alternative proposal for four separate bargaining units, one for each practice, but determines that the Unions proposed bargaining unit is appropriate in the circumstances of this case.

Panel

Mr Paul Swann, Panel Chair

Mr Alistair Paton

Dr Steve Jary

15 October 2026