Decision

Bargaining Unit Decision

Updated 13 October 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1481(2025)

25 September 2025

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DETERMINATION OF THE BARGAINING UNIT

The Parties:

Unite the Union

and

BEAR Scotland Limited

1. Introduction

1)         Unite the Union (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 16 July 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by BEAR Scotland Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “Road Worker, Road Maintenance, Storeman, Bridgeman and Electrical Supervisor.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “Bear Scotland Limited, Bridgepoint Depot, 23a Longman Drive, Inverness, IV1 1SU.” The application was received by the CAC on 16 July 2025, and the CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 17 July 2025. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 23 July 2025 which was copied to the Union.

2)         In accordance with section 263 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (the Act), the CAC Chair established a Panel to deal with the case. The Panel consisted of Professor Alan Bogg, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Alistair Paton and Mr Stephen Jary. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Joanne Curtis.

3)          By a decision dated 18 August 2025 the Panel accepted the Union’s application. The parties then entered a period of negotiation in an attempt to reach agreement on the appropriate bargaining unit. As no agreement was reached, the parties were invited to supply the Panel with, and to exchange, written submissions relating to the question of the determination of the appropriate bargaining unit.

2. Hearing

4)         A hearing was held via zoom on 18 September 2025 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 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 role of Storeman in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit did not exist and that this role was classified as a Road Worker Grade 4. It was also agreed that the role of Bridgeman should be excluded as it did not fall within the “operative unit.” 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. It was also accepted that the number of workers in each Road Worker grade listed by the Union was different to the numbers indicated by the Employer. This difference was explained by the Employer who said that depending on the developing skill level of the individual Road Worker they could be promoted to a higher grade. The Employer explained that recruitment was ongoing and therefore the number of Road Workers in each grade fluctuated on a regular basis. The Union could only base the number of workers in its proposed bargaining unit on the information available to them at that time which might not necessarily be the most up to date.

4. Summary of the submissions made by the Union

6)         The Union said that it believed there were 15 workers in the proposed bargaining unit all of whom were Union members and all of whom were involved in road maintenance, working out of the Employer’s Inverness depot. The Union said that the Supervisors, TRISS Operatives, Cleaner, and Patrol Drivers (seasonal) were excluded. The Union accepted that the Storeperson role may not exist and that this role was in fact that of a Roadworker Grade 4. The Union accepted that the Bridgeman should not be included within the bargaining unit. The Union said that it understood that the Employer was not seeking to rely on any of the factors in Paragraph 19B(2) and (3) neither had it argued that the proposed bargaining unit was not compatible with effective management. The Union said that the Employer instead sought to argue that the bargaining unit should be expanded to include additional workers. The Union said it was concerned that the Employer was doing this to dilute the density of membership “so as to engineer a bargaining unit which has less than 50% of the membership required to obtain recognition.”

7)         The Union referred to the Employer’s submissions sent to the CAC on 15 September 2025 in which the Employer had stated “It is our opinion that the Supervisors, TRISS operatives and cleaner roles should be included in the unit and the Storeperson and Bridgeman be excluded as they do not fall within the operative unit.” The Union said that the only dispute between the parties therefore appeared to be the categories of workers to be included in the bargaining unit and the number of workers currently employed in those roles rather than whether the bargaining unit was or was not compatible with effective management. The Union explained further the numbers and categories involved and said that the additions proposed by the Employer included TRISS Operatives (4), Cleaner (1), Patrol Drivers (8 seasonal) and Supervisors (2)

8)         The Union said that the bargaining unit it proposed consisted only of Apprentice Roadworkers, Roadworker grades 2-5, and Specialist Roadworker. The Union said that its primary argument was as per Kwik-Fit and that the bargaining unit which it had proposed was appropriate and that in such circumstances the Panel should end its assessment there and not go on to consider whether there were any other units that might be appropriate -such as the unit proposed by the Employer. The Union said that its proposed bargaining unit was appropriate because it was fully compatible with effective management, it accurately reflected the characteristics of the workers concerned and it was geographically coherent. The Union explained that “recognition of the proposed bargaining unit” would strengthen rather than impair effective management and industrial relations. The Union again reiterated that the Employer did not seek to rely upon any of the factors in Paragraph 19B(2) and (3) but instead sought to expand the size of the bargaining unit. The Union said “this is an ill-disguised attempt by the Employer to frustrate the Union’s application; and there is no coherent reason why TRISS Operatives, Cleaners, Patrol Drivers or Supervisors should be added to the proposed bargaining unit.”

9)         The Union went on to say:

(1) “Cleaners work one hour per night under a different contract and pay scale.

(2) Patrol workers are seasonal workers who work from mid-October to mid-April. They do not work on the roads but may occasionally drive smaller gritters. They also have a different pay scale.

(3) TRISS operatives patrol truck routes and typically do not work on the roads. Their main responsibility is to respond to accidents and broken-down vehicles.

(4) Supervisors are on a different contract and pay scale.

Conversely, the bargaining unit proposed by the Union is coherent and fully reflects the characteristics of the employees concerned ie roadworkers based at the Bridgepoint Depot at 23a, Longman Drive, Inverness.”

10)       The Union concluded by saying that it would invite the Panel to determine that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was an appropriate bargaining under paragraph 19(3) of Schedule A1 TULRCA.

5. Summary of submissions made by the Employer

11)       The Employer said that it had “circa 900 employees across its various depots.” The Employer said that the Inverness depot had 80 employees, of which 30 employees fell within the operations Unit. The Employer explained that the operations headcount increased by a further 8 Patrol Drivers who worked seasonally from October through to May to support the Employer’s winter response. The Employer said that the operations unit was led by an Operations Manager with two direct reports who supervised the 36 Operators in Inverness. The Employer provided a breakdown of the roles and numbers it said should be included in the bargaining unit:

1. Storeperson. The Employer said that the Union had asserted that there was one worker carrying out this role when in fact this role did not exist, and this worker was instead classified as a roadworker grade 4.

2. Bridgeman/Technician. The Employer said that this role did exist but that it fell under the Northwest Bridges Unit.

3. Supervisors. The Employer said that the two supervisors which the Union were seeking to exclude should be included and fell under the Inverness Operations unit.

4. TRISS Operatives. The Employer said that it currently had four workers carrying out this role, which the Union had excluded. The Employer said that TRISS Operatives provided a key operative role and should be included as they had the same terms and conditions as the roadworkers albeit they worked a different shift pattern.

5. Cleaner. The Employer said that this role (1) was based within the operations unit and reported to the Operations manager and therefore should be included.

6. Patrol Drivers. The Employer said these were essentially Roadworkers, and eight were recruited each year on a seasonal basis. The Employer said that the Union had excluded these workers, and they should have been included.

7. Apprentice Roadworker. The Union gave this figure as one whereas the Employer said there was two.

8. Roadworker Grade 2. The Union gave this figure as two and the Employer agreed there were two.

9. Roadworker Grade 3. The Union gave this figure as seven whereas the Employer said there were ten.

10. Roadworker Grade 4. The Union gave this figure as two whereas the Employer said there were six.

11. Roadworker Grade 5. The Union gave this figure as one whereas the Employer said there were two.

12. Specialist Roadworker 1. Both the Employer and the Union agreed there was currently one worker employed in this role.

12)       To assist the Panel the Employer also provided a Company Organisation Chart, BEAR Operator Organisation Chart (Including detailed chart for Inverness depot) and Employment contracts for the following roles: TRISS operative, Roadworker, Cleaner and Supervisor. During the hearing the Employer referred to the BEAR Scotland Limited Core Structure document. The Employer explained that it operated in the North West and South East and that Inverness was part of the North West structure. The Employer said that within the North West management structure Kevin Campbell was the Senior operations Manager. The Employer then referred the Panel to the North West Operations Organisational Chart. This separated the North West into North and South. It explained that Inverness fell under North with an Operations Manager overseeing the North and Operations Supervisors under them. The Employer explained that the supervisors looked after Apprentice Roadworker, Roadworker 2-5, Specialist Roadworker, TRISS Operative and Temporary Winter Patrol. The Employer said that it did not believe it would be compatible with effective management to isolate the 15 Union members from all the other workers who worked within operations.

13)       The Employer said that the TRISS workers and temporary workers all fell within the category of Roadworker. To clarify the Employer said that TRISS was in effect Trunk Road Incident Support. The Employer explained that these workers had been roadworkers and moved into this role as it was less labour intensive. The Employer went into a lot of detail about issues with the 2025 pay negotiations with the Union and how this was impacting on all of its workers not just members of the Union.

14)       In response to a question raised by the Panel about the Inverness structure and how that worked with pay, management and delegation of duties the Employer said that the pay structure for Roadworkers and TRISS were structured the same. The Employer said that part of the challenge around pay structure was the difference in contracts that had been won (new contracts) and TUPE transfers meaning that there were inevitably different terms and conditions and different salaries. The Employer said that when it won the North West in 2022 it gave pay rises to reflect the South East. The Employer said that at the moment the North West and South East were not the same due to TUPE but that it was working to get there. It said that North West salaries had increased by nearly 30% to recognise the challenges there. The Employer said that ultimate responsibility sat with the Senior Operations Manager and thereafter with the Operations Managers for the North and South. All Supervisors reported into them. It was explained that Senior Management did have meetings with Supervisors but only to address any issues they may have with the Operations Manager. The Employer said that it was the supervisors that dealt with any issues surrounding sickness and pay.

15)       The Employer said that the structure did allow for an Operations Graduate. Reference was made to the temporary winter Patrol Drivers who were employed seasonally to support the business over the winter months. This enabled them to secure the resources should the worst-case scenario occur. The Employer said that they monitor the network and respond until the main gritters get into place. In terms of Roadworkers the Employer explained that the level they were placed on (2-5), came down to the workers skill level and training. The Employer added that the Level 2 Roadworkers hourly rate had been increased to £12.75 beyond the living wage to make it more attractive.

16)       The Panel asked about the geographical locations falling within Operations North (in addition to Inverness) and whether there was any localised setting of terms and conditions. The Employer said that all Roadworkers were on the same wage depending on their grade. The Panel also asked about the renumeration of the TRISS workers. The Employer explained that their renumeration worked in a slightly different way to the Roadworkers as they worked 12 hour shifts and worked “four on and four off”, whereas the Roadworkers worked 5 days with overtime for weekends. The Employer said that all TRISS were paid the same rate.

6. Closing submissions

17)       The Union closed its submissions first and said that it wished to draw the Panel’s attention to the comments by the Employer which related to the contracts of the TRISS workers and the work that they carried out. The Union said that the work was very different to the Roadworkers and it was not therefore appropriate for them to be included in the bargaining unit. The Union said whether a bargaining unit was compatible with effective management did not depend on whether the bargaining unit contained 15 workers or 900 workers and that this was set out very clearly in the case of Lidl where it didn’t matter that the bargaining unit consisted of only a small proportion of the overall workforce. The Union said that recognition was not simply about wages but also workers’ terms and conditions and the fact that workers had been asking for recognition of the Union within the workplace. The Union said that it had held meetings with its members in Inverness and that they all wanted a voice. The Union said that the hearing was not about the ballot for industrial action it was about recognition. The Union concluded by saying that its proposed bargaining unit was simple, it was where its members were and it did not seek to expand the bargaining unit further, as Roadworkers were a distinct category of worker carrying out a distinct role within operations.

18)       The Employer closed by saying that TRISS workers were managed by the same supervisors, so they were in the same team as the Roadworkers. The Employer said that during the hearing it had identified the challenges it was facing. The Employer acknowledged that there were some issues in Inverness but that discussions were progressing and would continue. The Employer said that it had no issue with “Union involvement within the workplace.” The Employer said that its focus had always been on taking a holistic approach as opposed to establishing a “fragmented state”. The Employer said that the proposed bargaining unit would not work as it would have “elements of those in the unit and those outside and we want to support the needs of our people.” In answer to the Panel’s final question the Employer said it was not aware of any other bargaining unit in Inverness.

7. Considerations

19)       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.

20)       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.”

21)       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.

22)       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.

23)       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.

24)       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 and accepts the Union’s contention that the Employer showed itself able to distinguish between Roadworkers and other workers within operations. 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.  

25)       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; however the crux of the Employer’s argument was not so much whether the proposed unit was acceptable in its current form but whether it should be more expansive to include other roles under the Operations Manager (North) at Inverness. The Employer said that there was a real and genuine concern that acceptance of the Union’s proposed bargaining unit would create a potentially damaging division within the organisation in circumstances where such a division did not currently exist. The Panel appreciates that a bargaining unit covering all roles may have its attractions for the Employer but, as stated in paragraph 23 above, the Panel’s role is not to decide whether another bargaining unit would be more appropriate than that proposed by the Union.

26)       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 notes the Employer’s statement that it believed workers had shown no interest in being represented by the Union but equally that there was no evidence that such workers were actively opposed to being represented. The Panel also notes that based on the Employer’s figures the proposed bargaining unit currently consists of 23 Roadworkers 15 of whom are Union members. 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.

8. Decision

27)       The Panel’s decision is that the appropriate bargaining unit is “Road Workers, located at Bear Scotland Limited, Bridgepoint Depot, 23a Longman Drive, Inverness, IV1 1SU.” It is noted that the roles of Storeman, Bridgeman and Electrical Supervisor have been omitted from the bargaining unit description however as mentioned in detail at Paragraph 5 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 Cleaners, Supervisors, TRISS Operatives, Patrol Drivers (seasonal workers) and the role of Operations Graduate.

Panel

Professor Alan Bogg, Panel Chair

Mr Alistair Paton

Mr Stephen Jary

25 September 2025