Decision

Bargaining Unit Decision

Updated 7 July 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

© Crown copyright 2025

This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.

Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cac-outcome-unite-the-union-evtec-aluminium/bargaining-unit-decision

Case Number: TUR1/1444(2025)

04 July 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

Evtec Aluminium

1. Introduction

1)         Unite the Union (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 3 January 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Evtec Aluminium (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “All Operatives, Technicians, Forklift and Maintenance workers up to and including the level of Team Leader / Coordinator (Directs), excluding all management and Indirects as listed, Accounts Payable, Accounts Receivable Manager, Business & Process Improvement, Business & Process Improvement Supervisor, Commercial & Legal Assistant, Continuous Improvement Engineer, Cost Estimator, Financial Accountant, Financial Controller, HR Manager, HR Officer, Management Accountant, Master Scheduler, MP & L Manager, Payroll Manager, Project Engineer, Quality Engineer and Shift Manager, this list is not exhaustive. Located at: Chelmarsh, Daimler Green, Coventry, CV6 3LT.”  The application was received by the CAC on 3 January 2025 and the CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application by a letter of the same date.  The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 10 January 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 Richard Fulham, and Mr Paul Moloney.  The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kate Norgate. 

3)         By a decision dated 11 February 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.  A bargaining unit hearing was held by virtual means on 21 May 2025 and the names of those who attended the hearing are appended to this decision.

4)         The Panel is required, by paragraph 19(2) of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule), 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. 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 take into account any view the employer has about any other bargaining unit that it considers would be appropriate.

5)         Evtec Aluminium is part of a wider group of companies within the Evtec Group. It is involved in the design, manufacture and supply of complex aluminium castings. Evtec has a site in Kidderminster as well as the Coventry site, which is the location of the Proposed Bargaining Unit.

2. Matters clarified at the beginning of the hearing

6)         There was some confusion about what roles were included in the proposed bargaining unit. At the start of the hearing the Panel Chair invited the Union to clarify which roles the Union contends should be included in its proposed bargaining unit.

7)         The Union clarified that it had intended to include all Direct roles, including Maintenance, Forklift, and Operatives, when defining its proposed bargaining unit, but due to unfamiliarity it had to define it differently.  The Union confirmed that its proposed bargaining unit comprised all Direct roles. The following Indirect roles were also included: Quality Systems Technician, Tooling Storeman, Process Technician, Maintenance Team Leader, Maintenance Engineer, and Line Technician.  Directors, Managers, Supervisors, Clerical and Office-Based roles, and Apprentices were excluded.  This further clarification was provided after the Union has sight of the Employer’s Organisational charts and after talks with Acas.

3. Summary of the submissions made by the Union

8)         The Union submitted that its proposed bargaining unit was appropriate. The Union maintained that the Employer’s actions in attempting to expand the bargaining unit beyond the precisely defined roles was inappropriate, dilutive of functional cohesion, and contrary to the purpose of effective collective bargaining.

9)         The Union said that it had drafted its proposed bargaining unit to ensure clarity and to align with the functional and community-based division of roles within the organisation. It believed that the list of its exclusions was comprehensive, as it excluded all managerial, clerical, and office-based roles.

10)       The Union submitted that its proposed bargaining unit satisfied the statutory criteria for appropriateness for the following reasons:

  • The workers shared common job functions (technical, hands-on production and maintenance),
  • The workers shared similar terms and conditions (e.g. distinct working hours from managerial/clerical staff);
  • Workplace proximity (the workers were shop floor-based);
  • Common training, skills, and operational duties.

11)       The Union emphasised the functional cohesion of the workers in its proposed bargaining unit as they operated within the same functional domain, the shop floor and production area, and shared a common line management structure.   The Union disputed the Employer’s claim that roles that such as Process Engineer, and Site services, had comparable training, skills and operational duties to those in Maintenance, the Union confirming neither role fell within its proposed bargaining unit.

12)       In regard to the exclusion of Supervisors and Managers, the Union said that those staff possessed decisional and disciplinary responsibilities, which fundamentally distinguished them from the workforce that they managed.  The Union believed that the inclusion of such individuals would create a conflict of interest and undermine the unit’s integrity. During the course of the hearing the Union confirmed that, based on the definition provided by the Employer, the Despatch Supervisor was excluded as it was above the role of Team Leader.

13)       It was the Union’s view that it would not be appropriate to include Apprentices and Office-Based Roles.  The Union explained that Apprentices had distinct T&Cs governed by educational arrangements.  They shared common terms and conditions across sites, that were not aligned with shop-floor workers. They also had a semi-educational, not purely employment-based, status. 

14)       The Union further explained that clerical/office-based roles (e.g. NPI Co-ordinator) operated under different supervision, in different environments, and served different functions.  The Union believed that the inclusion of these roles would fragment the unit.   In response to a query raised by the Employer, the Union confirmed that the roles of NPI Co-ordinator, Business Improvement Co-ordinator, and HSE Advisor, did not fall within its proposed bargaining unit.

15)       The Union maintained that, in line with established industry practice, bargaining units in engineering and manufacturing environments frequently separated shop floor workers from office-based and managerial personnel.

16)       The Union argued that the Employer had failed, for the second time, to submit the data requested by the CAC, concerning the Union’s proposed bargaining unit.  The Union believed that this failure not only hindered a fair and timely determination, but it also reflected a pattern of obstruction, particularly in light of the Employer’s repeated attempts to inflate the unit with inappropriate job roles.

17)       According to the Union, the proposed bargaining unit reflected the functional, legal and industry-based distinctions.  The Employer’s proposed inclusions, according to the Union, were unjustified and conflicted with precedent. 

18)       It was agreed by the Panel that the Union would take further instruction regarding information concerning the role of Quality Systems Technician, and that it would respond to the Case Manager following the hearing.

4. Summary of the submissions made by the Employer

19)       The Employer argued that whilst the exercise at the start of the hearing had been referred to as a clarification, its position was that the explanations provided by the Union went much further than that.  It had taken a considerable amount of work to get to a position of understanding.  It was therefore not a clarification, and it simply did not have defined boundaries.  The Union’s proposed bargaining unit, as set out in its initial request and application, also referred to its list of excluded roles as “non exhaustive”.   It was the Employer’s view that any bargaining unit going forward was therefore a revised bargaining unit, and, consequently, the bargaining units proposed by the parties should be given equal consideration.  A bargaining unit that does not have clear boundaries cannot be compatible with effective management. 

20)      The Employer submitted the Union’s proposed bargaining unit had been determined by reference to membership density and without reference to the need for a bargaining unit to be compatible with effective management.  The Employer believed that the only appropriate bargaining unit was one that comprised all Direct and Indirect roles.

21)     By way of background the Employer explained that voluntary collective bargaining arrangements were inherited by Evtec (“Historical Bargaining Arrangements”).  These Historical Bargaining Arrangements covered all Staff, Direct and Indirect roles based at the Coventry sites. The information available suggested that membership levels were low. There was also wide spread support for the Works Committee. As such, in 2024, a decision was made to de-recognise Unite with effect from 9 October 2024.   The Employer had made it clear that it was keen to ensure that the voice of the entire workforce was represented and committed to strengthening the role of the Works Committee, which served as an effective platform for representing all employees. The feedback provided to the Managing Director on the shop floor supported this decision.

22)       It was the Employer’s view that the Union’s selective approach in defining its proposed bargaining unit had no management or operational logic and supported the Employer’s submission that it had been strategically defined based on current union membership, rather than objective operational criteria.   

23)       The Employer argued that if Indirect roles such as Maintenance were included, then all Indirect roles must also be included in order for the bargaining unit to be compatible with effective management because those workers directly contributed to, and supported, production. The Indirect roles identified by the Union as excluded, were closely interlinked with the roles included. Should collective bargaining be awarded, decisions made regarding the bargaining unit would have a direct impact on all the Indirect roles, creating a fragmented workforce.  Similarly, if Maintenance Engineers were included, then all Indirect Engineering roles should be included in order for the bargaining unit to be compatible with effective management because they had interchangeable skills, were employed on consistent terms and conditions and directly contributed to and supported production.  In response to the Union’s comment that its rational for including those Indirect roles with the Directs was that they spent the majority of their time of the shop floor, the Employer argued that there were roles that were included that only 20% of time on shopfloor.

24)       The Employer said that the broader operational impact should also be realised, and that the bargaining unit must be defined in a way that reflected the full scope of roles within the organisation.  The inclusion of those roles, which represented in the region of 17individuals, was not an attempt to inflate numbers but rather a necessary measure to maintain afair, functional, and cohesive bargaining unit that reflected workplace realities and was compatible with effective management.

25)       The Employer submitted that the Union had failed to include within its proposed bargaining unit the Indirect roles (including Engineering) that worked alongside and very closely with the other Indirect roles which had been selectively included and who performed interchangeable functions from time to time.

26)       The Employer submitted that a consistent approach should be taken to roles that were at a similar level, on the same terms, worked the same shift systems and who worked very closely with those within the proposed bargaining unit (and interchangeably from time to time).  The Employer believed that given the way it operated, and the similarity and interdependence of the roles as well as their terms and conditions of employment, by excluding those Indirect roles the proposed bargaining unit was not compatible with effective management.

27)       The Employer said that in providing its submissions, due consideration was given to the overriding requirement that the proposed bargaining unit must be compatible with effective management, and the five specific factors that the Panel would need to consider. Due consideration was also given to the fact that the Panel must have regard to the object of encouraging and promoting fair and efficient practices and arrangements in the workplace, and that this could not be achieved by excluding the roles that the Union had from the proposed bargaining unit. Furthermore, it was noted that the Panel would not only take into consideration the characteristics of the workers falling within the proposed bargaining unit, but any others it considered relevant (i.e. those excluded by the Union).  The Employer believed that it was important for the Panel to consider the characteristics of the following roles that had been excluded from the Union’s proposed bargaining unit:

  • Cost Estimator (1)
  • Business & Process Improvement (1)
  • Master Scheduler (1)
  • Continuous Improvement Engineer (1)
  • Process Engineer (1)
  • Project Engineers (3)
  • Quality Engineer (2)
  • Shift Manager (3)
  • Apprentices (4)

28)       The Employer maintained that excluding those groups of workers was incompatible with effective management and did not promote fair and efficient practices and arrangements in the workplace.   As for the characteristics of those workers, all of the roles fall within Departments in which the Union had selected other roles to be included.  They worked as part of the same team, had shared objectives, worked at the same or similar level and could work interchangeably.  The Employer explained that except for those workers who TUPE transferred on previous terms set out above), all workers, who were employed in Direct and Indirect roles:

1.      enjoyed the same rate of pay relative to their job role, including the same rate for any shift premiums;

2.      received the same percentage pay award each year;

3.      received the same pension entitlement;

4.      entitled to the same benefits;

5.      received the same pay for absences (sickness and/or family leave);

6.      worked under the same contract of employment (dependant only on start date).

7.      had the same holiday entitlement (save for Maintenance Engineers due to legacy continental shift patterns);

8.      had similar maximum hours of work;

9.      were subject to the same employment policies, procedures and performance management processes; and

10.  had similar notice periods;

11.   where employees worked shift systems, they all worked the shift patterns set out below, (save for Maintenance Engineers who differed very slightly):

All other workers (including direct and indirect roles) working shift pattern

37 hours per week:

Shift Pattern: Mon – Thurs:

  • Early Shift: 6am - 2pm

  • Late Shift: 2pm - 10pm

  • Night Shift: 10pm - 6am

Shift Pattern: Friday:

  • Early Shift: 6am - 12pm

  • Late Shift: 12pm - 6pm

  • Night Shift: 6pm - 12am

Weekend Shift: Do not run except for maintenance on continental shift patterns 

Maintenance Engineers (Continental shift pattern)

41 hours per week on average

Shift Pattern: Mon – Thurs:

  • Dayshift: 06.00-18.00

  • Nightshift 18.00-06.00

Friday shift would be:

  • Dayshift = 06.00 - 16.00

  • Nightshift = 16.00 - 02.00

29)         The Employer maintained that the only key difference between Direct and Indirect roles, which was immaterial, was that there were different (but very similar) rates of pay (this reflected the difference in role content).   The Employer stated that a number of the roles excluded, reported through to the same reporting line as those included.

30)       Whilst the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was all based at Coventry, it had inappropriately split up the Business Office & Supply Chain Department; Quality Department; Engineering Department and Operations.  The Direct and Indirect workers were treated “as one”. They were represented, effectively, on the Works Committee by joint representatives. There had been no need expressed by the employees or otherwise, for separate representatives.

31)       The historical recognition arrangements, which were compatible with effective management and worked effectively and efficiently in practice, applied to all Staff and Direct and Indirect employees. Whilst it was understood that the Union disputed whether those arrangements covered Staff, there appeared to be no dispute that they covered Indirect employees. Contracts for Master Scheduler and Business and Process Improvement showed that those Indirect roles were covered by collective agreements. The joint union/employer pay communication confirmed that it covered all Staff. When pay deals were reached under the Historical Bargaining Arrangement, the proposed joint communications were sent to the Full Time Officer, who never asked to take out reference to Staff or to any Indirect roles.

32)       The Employer said that if recognition was granted to the workers in Union proposed bargaining unit alone, this would result in a proportion of workers having collective bargaining arrangements and others in the same Departments below Management/Director roles not. There was a realistic risk of creating numerous small, fragmented bargaining units, potentially represented by different trade unions.

33)         The Employer concluded, emphasising that it had entered into discussions with Union in a meaningful way, and supplied it with a copy of the organisational chart with the hope of promoting a better understanding of the operations and the similarities and close relationships between the workers included within the Union proposed bargaining unit and those that had been excluded.  However, despite those discussions, it had been unable to obtain the Union’s agreement to include those workers, whom had been inappropriately excluded, and without whom that bargaining unit would remain inappropriate. As such, the bargaining unit that continues to be proposed by the Union was firstly unclear and, in any event, clearly not compatible with effective management.   Conversely, the bargaining unit proposed by the Employer was properly thought out, objectively assessed and was appropriate.

34)      It was agreed by the Panel that following the hearing the Employer would provide to the Case Manager a list of the points that the Employer had raised, and clarified, in response to the Union’s oral submissions.

5. Further submissions received from the parties

35)         In an email dated 22 May 2025, the Union stated that following a request to assess the nature of a particular role, it had conducted inquiries to determine whether the role was majority office-based or shop floor-based.  The Union explained that after consulting with relevant sources at the workplace, including discussions with the Quality Department, it had been established that the role in question was a relatively new position. The core responsibilities of the role currently focused on Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and the associated processes on the shop floor. Based on the information provided, the role at present leant slightly towards being majority shop-floor based.  The Union maintained that this differed from the Employer’s previously stated position at the hearing, where it was indicated that only 25% of the role’s duties were shop-floor based. Whilst the Union acknowledged this discrepancy, it believed that it was important to note that its conclusions were based on the best available information available to the Union at this time.

36)       On 22 May 2025 the Employer submitted further written submissions, informing the Panel that its document had been updated to an extent in light of information provided during the hearing. The Employer asked that it was read in conjunction with the original submissions made on 8 May 2025 and the information provided, and submissions made during the course of the hearing.  

37)       The Employer reiterated its point that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was not appropriate because it was neither clear nor identifiable.  The Employer maintained that the CAC must, as in all its decisions, have general regard to the object of encouraging and promoting fair and efficient practices and arrangements in the workplace, and that central to this objective must be for the bargaining unit to be identifiable, with clear boundaries. The Employer continued, and raised the following points in regard to both the Union’s written and oral submissions at the hearing:

Problem one: What does the “(Direct)” caveat refer to?

At the Hearing it was contended by the Union that the proposed bargaining unit was “all Directs” with specified Indirect roles also included, but this was not the way in which the proposed bargaining unit was framed.

Problem two: Are all Management roles intended to be excluded?

It was unclear whether the list of exclusions was referring to the Indirect roles that were excluded or the Management and Indirect roles that were excluded. Whilst it was confirmed at the Hearing that all Management roles were intended to be excluded, this was not the way in which the proposed bargaining unit was framed.

Problem three: a “non-exhaustive” list of exclusions rendered it impossible to identify the bargaining unit especially when, due to problems one and two, it was impossible to identify which roles were included. It could not be workable (and therefore compatible with effective management) for the Union to be able to later say “that role was intended to be excluded, the list was non-exhaustive”.  Parties must be able to enter into collective bargaining with an understanding of which roles would be affected by any collective agreements reached.

38)       The Employer considered that its proposal of “all Direct and Indirect roles” was the opposite of what the Union had referred to as “…dilutive functional cohesion”. The selective approach taken by the Union appeared to (a) select some but not all Indirect roles; and (b) “split” a number of departments.   The Employer said that whilst it might be common to draw a horizontal line across a management structure this was not what the Union were seeking to do at Coventry site. Whereas a bargaining unit of all Direct and Indirect roles would take a consistent approach to a classification of roles (i.e. Indirects), avoid Departments being divided and individuals working along-side each other and at the same level whilst some were included and some excluded from collective bargaining.  

39)       According to the Employer, a bargaining unit of all Directs and Indirects would ensure consistency for those working alongside each other, on consistent terms and conditions and with similar and interchangeable skills.

40)        Further commenting on the Union’s written submission, the Employer criticised the wording used by the Union, that the roles excluded “includ[e] all managerial, clerical, and office-based roles.” The Employer argued that this meant that some roles other that those that were “managerial, clerical, and office-based” must also be excluded. Again, creating a lack of clarity and certainty regarding the boundaries of the proposed bargaining unit.  As for the Union’s reference to “all managerial, clerical, and office-based roles.”, this was factually incorrect as a number of the roles that were excluded were none of these things. For example, the following roles were expressly excluded but were not “managerial, clerical, and office-based”. The Quality Engineer role was not a managerial or clerical role and would spend ~50% of its time on the Production floor, not in an office; the Process Engineer was not a managerial or clerical role and would spend ~80% of its time on the Production floor, not in an office; the Shift Manager and Despatch Supervisor were  supervisory roles, not managerial, it was not clerical and would spend ~80% of its time on the Production floor; the Project Engineer was not a managerial or clerical role and would spend ~40% of its time on the Production floor. Apprentices were wholly Production based (save for their college attendance). Many of the roles entail a mix of time spent on the Production floor and in an office environment, and it was not appropriate or even workable to approach a bargaining unit decision based on whether it was “office-based”.  

41)       The Employer maintained that its workers viewed themselves as belonging to the Department as per the Employer’s Organisation Chart.  More broadly they identified themselves as being “Direct” or “Indirect” which was therefore an appropriate way to define the bargaining unit.

42)       As for the Union’s claim that “The employees within the proposed unit share: Common job functions (technical, hands-on production and maintenance)”, the Employer argued that this was factually incorrect. Those roles which appeared to be included did not all share common job functions.  For example, the job function of a General Operative (which was either a CNC Operator or Assembly Operator manufacturing parts to customer requirements) was very different to a Maintenance Engineer role which was responsible for repairing machines when they broke down and performing preventative maintenance, referred to as TPM. They spend 60-70% of their time on the shop floor and the remainder in their designated maintenance area, depending on the nature of the breakdowns.

43)       However, roles that had been excluded did share the same job functions, for example Quality Engineers (expressly excluded) were 100% dedicated to Production and covered on the Production floor during periods of holiday, sickness or volume increases. This role was interchangeable with the other roles in the Quality Department of End of Line Inspector (formerly known as Firewall Inspector), Quality Systems Technician and Quality Technician. Where there was functional flexibility on the part of the workers such as working across skill categories or regularly interchanging roles or if there genuinely was a single status as respects their terms and conditions of employment, such as here, then such features should render a bargaining unit, which covered only some of them, inappropriate.

44)       Regarding the Union’s comments on “Similar terms and conditions (e.g. distinct working hours from managerial/clerical staff)”, the Employer said that all Direct and Indirect roles shared similar terms and conditions (save for pay).   Working hours were dictated by the need of the particular role. Process Engineers and Shift Managers (both expressly excluded) worked the same number of hours per week (38 hours) and both worked on shift patterns. This was the same for the General Operators (which are included). Maintenance Engineers (included) were the only roles that worked to a continental 4 on 4 off shift pattern, again due to the need of the role. It was wholly incorrect for the Union to suggest that its proposed bargaining unit had been designed with consistency of working hours in mind.

45)       Noting the Union’s comments on “Workplace proximity (shop floor-based);” The Employer said that was submitted that location (referred to by the Union as workplace proximity) was a factor intended to refer to geographical location. However, even in the context of the “shop floor” this assertion was incorrect. The Union’s proposed bargaining unit included roles that were not (a) defined within Organisation’s structure as being in the “Operation”; and (b) spent time not on the Production Floor. For example, the Quality Systems Technician was 80% office based. This role involved the preparing and issuing of all quality documentation within Production in order to maintain the necessary certifications. The role-holder created and maintained quality records. The skills were such that the role could and does also carry out the duties of the Quality Technician and End-of-Line Inspector. However, the Indirect roles were intrinsically linked to Production and played a vital part in it hence it being appropriate to include all Indirect roles in the bargaining unit. Whether they were “shopfloor” was (a) factually incorrect; but also (b) an artificial distinction within the organisation.

46)       The Employer disagreed with the Union’s claim that the workers in its proposed bargaining unit shared “Common training, skills, and operational duties.” The Employer said that  the training, skills and operational duties of those roles that had been included were not “common”. For example, a Maintenance Engineer would maintain and fix the machines whereas a General Operative would operate them.  There were however roles that had been excluded that had comparable training, skills and operational duties to a Maintenance Engineer, for example a Process Engineer. A bargaining unit of all Directs and Indirects would ensure that those with common training, skills, and operational duties would sit in the bargaining unit together and be compatible with effective management.

47)       The Employer disputed the Union’s claim assertion that “The proposed unit operates within    the same functional domain — the shop floor and production area — and shares a common line management structure.” The Employer said that the proposed bargaining unit did not operate within the same functional domain and therefore that statement was factually inaccurate. As can be seen from the Organisation Chart, the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was not limited to “the shop floor and production area”.  Indeed, there were non-managerial, non-clerical, non office based roles within “Operations” excluded, namely Shift Managers. There were also roles that had been included in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit that sit outside of the Operations Department sitting instead within the Business Office & Supply Chain; Engineering and Quality Departments.  There were also roles that had been excluded that sit outside Operations but were not managerial, clerical or 100% office based: Human Resources (for example, HSE Advisor would spend 60% time in Production); Business Office & Supply Chain (for example Business process and improvement role would spend a significant amount of time on the shopfloor); Engineering (for example, Process Engineers are mostly Production floor based) and Quality (for example, one of the Quality Engineer’s was 100% Production floor based).A bargaining unit of all Directs and Indirects would, however, take a consistent approach to functions and mean that those sharing a common line management structure and with common working patterns would be treated consistently.

48)       In response to the Union’s point that that “Supervisors and management-level staff possess decisional and disciplinary responsibilities, which fundamentally distinguish them from the workforce they oversee. Inclusion of such individuals would create a conflict of interest and undermine the unit’s integrity”, the Employer also mentioned that the Union had cited cases, but the Employer said that it was unclear as to their relevance.  The Employer said that it was also unable to locate some of them due inaccurate case referencing.

49)       The Employer continued, stating that whilst it is accepted that whether individuals have disciplinary powers or a significant role in determining pay might be relevant in some cases, the Employer’s proposed alternative bargaining unit would not include any managers with significant “decisional and disciplinary responsibilities”. Pay was set at Director level and had been a flat percentage increase across all roles for a number of years.

50)       In regard to Shift Managers, the Employer explained that whilst these roles had “Manager” in the title they were not managerial roles either within the organisation’s structure or within the usual understanding of the meaning of the term.   The same role, at the Kidderminster site  was actually referred to as a “Supervisor”. It was the same level role as the Dispatch Supervisor. They did not possess “decisional” responsibilities and had no input into pay decisions. Such responsibilities would sit at Director level. Even those managerial roles only made recommendations rather than making decisions. They were only involved in low level (verbal warning) investigations and disciplinaries and also only first and second stages of the Attendance Improvement Procedure. They did not deal with higher level warnings. As such, it was not the case that there would be any conflict of interest in Shift Managers being included.   A bargaining unit of all Directs and Indirects would not include any managerial roles. Whilst Shift Managers, more akin to supervisors, would have some involvement in low level disciplinary procedures and attendance management this was not such that it would create a conflict of interest.

51)       Turning to the point concerning the Union’s exclusion of Apprentices and Office-Based roles, the Employer submitted that whilst Apprentices sit on the Human Resources page on the Organisation Chart, this was for budgeting purposes they were not HR roles. They were Production Apprentices destined to be a Maintenance Engineer (which would be included), a Process engineer (which would be excluded) or Quality Engineer (which would be excluded). Whilst they had an educational element and attended college one day per week after the first year, their substantive terms and conditions were comparable with non-Apprentice roles and were treated as fully integrated into and aligned with Production. The Employer was unclear what the Union was referring to when it stated, “Confirmation from the employer that they share common T&Cs across sites — not aligned with shop-floor employees;”.  The Employer had confirmed that they did not have different terms and conditions and that they had the same contract as any other Direct or Indirect employees.

52)       The Employer further stated that a definition based on whether a role was “office based” was inherently problematic given that many roles within the structure were a mix of office and production floor based. Furthermore, roles were included that had a proportion at their time spent in an office environment. For example, the Quality Department; the Quality Engineer role was excluded, and there were two individuals in this role. One of them was 100% on the Production Floor (in the CMM room) but the other was 50% on the Production floor and 50% out with customers. However, the Quality Systems Technician was included, but was 80% in an office and 20% on the Shopfloor. A bargaining unit of all Directs and Indirects would not be similarly problematic and would be simple and easy to understand now and in the future.

53)       In its concluding comments the Employer said that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit unidentifiable and therefore could not be compatible with effective management.  The inclusion of all Indirect roles, which represented a small number of individuals (14 roles based on the indirect roles that had not been included, 22 individuals currently), was not an attempt to inflate numbers but rather a necessary measure to maintain a fair, functional, and cohesive bargaining unit that reflected workplace realities and was compatible with effective management.

54)       Commenting on the Employer’s further submissions, on 4 June 2024 the Union made the following observations:

55)       Exclusion of Apprentices: Apprentices were primarily in educational roles. Upon completion of their training, if they transition into roles that fall within the scope of the bargaining unit, they would then be included as appropriate.  Apprentices were governed by distinct terms and conditions aligned with their educational status.  The Employer had confirmed that apprentices had consistent terms and conditions across different sites, which are not aligned with shop-floor employees.  Their roles were semi-educational and not fully employment-based.

56)       Exclusion of Supervisors and Managers:  Supervisors and management-level staff were fundamentally different from the workforce that they oversee. They possessed decision-making and disciplinary authority, which created a potential conflict of interest if included in the bargaining unit. This would undermine the unit’s integrity.  The Employer had also noted the inconsistencies in role titles—some individuals listed as Managers function more as Supervisors, while some supervisors aligned more closely with Team Leaders. This inconsistency further illustrated the confusion surrounding the roles and responsibilities within the proposed bargaining unit.

57)       Direct and Indirect Employees:  The Employer had argued that including both direct and indirect employees would provide clarity and ensure that all employees understood their place within the organisational structure.  This was not however supported by the Employer’s own actions, which showed repeated structural changes during the CAC application process. The Union referred to documents within the Employer’s bundle, specifically:

  • Business Office & Supply Chain:

           - Despatch Supervisor changed from Direct to Indirect

  • Human Resources:

           - HSE Advisor changed from Staff to Indirect

           - Firewall Inspector changed to End of Line Inspector

           - Team Leaders changed from Direct to Indirect

           - Line Technicians changed from Direct to Indirect

58)       The Union argued that these changes highlighted the Employer’s inconsistent classification and restructuring of roles and further supported the need for a more clearly defined bargaining unit.  Furthermore, the “Indirect” group itself was not homogenous. The workers in this category had significantly different responsibilities and reporting lines.  For example, Business Office & Supply Chain.  The roles such as Cost Estimator, Business & Process Improvement, Master Scheduler, Senior NPI Planner, Continuous Improvement Engineer, and Business Improvement Coordinator were predominantly office-based, non-shop-floor roles with high levels of authority. These individuals reported directly to the Group Director.  By simply labelling a group as “Indirect”, did not reflect any functional or organisational similarity.

59)       Finally, the Union submitted that its proposed bargaining unit was made up exclusively of majority shop-floor-based roles, and reiterated its point that those workers shared many characteristics, including common job functions, similar terms and conditions, workplace proximity, and training and skills.

6. Considerations

60)       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: 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. 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 take into account any view the employer has about any other bargaining unit that it considers would be appropriate.

61)       We 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”.

62)       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.

63)       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.

64)       We remind ourselves 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). We should not reject the Union’s proposed bargaining unit because we consider that a different unit would be more appropriate nor, in considering whether it is compatible with effective management, should we consider whether it is the most effective or desirable unit in that context.

65)       Both the Union and the Employer understand that “Direct” roles are those directly involved in production. “Indirect” roles are those that support and are intrinsically linked to production and required in order for production to occur. It was established that there are 100 direct employees, 45 indirect, 13 at staff level, and 15 at Director and Management level based at the Coventry site.  The rationale of the bargaining unit proposed by the union was explained as a unit which included all those who work at shop floor level as well as those who work with those at shop floor level on a day to day basis.

66)       Despite the comparatively modest level of the initial test of appropriateness we consider that that those within the proposed bargaining unit should be easily identifiable. An indeterminate or opaque bargaining unit would not be compatible with effective management. Unless both the Union and the Employer are able to discern, from the description proposed, which roles and individuals fall within it, both collective bargaining and effective management would be undermined. 

67)       The proposed bargaining unit is “all Operatives, Technicians, Forklift and Maintenance workers up to and including the level of Team Leader / Coordinator (Directs), excluding all management and Indirects as listed”. The definition then goes on to list a number of roles which are excluded as well as setting out the location. The Union explained that some Indirects were included in its proposal, namely, Quality Systems Technician, Tooling storeman, Process Technician, Maintenance Team Leader, Maintenance Engineers and Line Technician. In the Panel’s view these express inclusions are not discernible from the definition provided by the Union. One reading of the proposed wording would limit the definition to Directs only. Providing a “non-exhaustive” list of Indirect roles which have been excluded is unworkable unless all such roles are excluded.

68)       A further defining criteria, not set out in the wording provided by the Union, is that the unit proposed encompasses majority shop-floor-based roles. There were disputes about the amount of time some of the Indirect roles spent on the shop-floor. Further uncertainty would be caused by arguments about whether the definition should be geared towards value added definitions rather than simply counting the amount of time spent doing certain tasks.

69)       For these reasons, we conclude that the proposed bargaining unit is not appropriate. It is not compatible with effective management. We have reminded ourselves that in rejecting the Proposed Bargaining Unit we do not do so because we feel that a different unit would be more appropriate.

70)       Pursuant to paragraph 19(3) we must further decide a bargaining unit which is appropriate. As we have set out, the Employer submits that the appropriate bargaining unit should consist of all Direct and Indirect roles. Among other things, this is said by the Employer to be identifiable, simple, future proof and, most importantly, compatible with effective management.

71)       In our view, the dividing line between so called Direct and Indirect employees and roles is somewhat indeterminate. It is an internal description capable of differing interpretations. As the Union has pointed out, the documents produced by the Employer show some roles changing from Direct to Indirect. However, the dividing line between those who are considered Direct and Indirect, on the on hand, and staff and Directors and Management, on the other hand, is easily understood by all those concerned. Although there was some dispute about the HSE Advisor role, it is closely linked to production and is not primarily office based.

72)       Including all Indirect, as well as Direct, roles in the bargaining unit has the attraction of avoiding artificial distinctions between employees performing similar roles and who work side by side. Although some Indirects have managerial responsibilities, we conclude that none perform any management tasks which would result in conflicts of interest in a collective bargaining context.  Indirect roles are also intrinsically linked to production. An additional benefit of such a unit is the similarity of terms and conditions of those who are included. For those employees who work shifts, this similarity extends to the shift patterns. Although there is a difference in the rate of pay between the two groups this is reflective of role content. Including the disputed 17 or so roles also mitigates against the risk of fragmented bargaining units which may adversely impact on the ability to manage effectively. We also note that neither the Union nor the Employer advocated for a Directs only bargaining unit.

73)       There are 4 apprentice roles at the site. It is not usual, in the Panel’s experience, for such roles to be included in bargaining units with other roles. In this instance, the apprentices move around the various production roles and, save for pay, are on the same terms and conditions as others who work in the production process. Once they conclude their apprenticeships, they move into one of these roles. On balance, and taking into account the submissions of the parties, we conclude it would not be appropriate to carve them out of the unit comprising Directs and Indirects.

7. Decision

74)       For the reasons set out above, the appropriate bargaining unit is all direct and indirect roles located at Chelmarsh, Daimler Green, Coventry, CV6 3LT.

75)       As the appropriate bargaining unit differs from the proposed bargaining unit, the Panel will proceed under paragraph 20(2) of the Schedule to decide if the application is invalid within the terms of paragraphs 43 to 50 of the Schedule.

Panel

Mr Rohan Pirani, Panel Chair

Mr Richard Fulham

Mr Paul Moloney

04 July 2025

8. Appendix

Names of those who attended the hearing:

For the Union

Shane Edwards          -           Unite the Union, Senior Organiser

Vivienne Martin          -           Unite the Union, Regional Officer

For the Employer

Clare Ward                   -           Partner of Eversheds

Demi Champion        -           Eversheds

Hazel Martin                -           Group HR Director

Amaya Corcuera       -           Group General Counsel

Ciara Layton                -           HR Manager

Trevor Devlin               -           Operations Manager

Leon Hand                   -           Group Business Office & Supply Chain Director

Keith Stanton             -           Group CEO

Back to top