Decision

Validity Decision

Updated 15 December 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1457(2025)

1 December 2025

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECISION ON WHETHER THE APPLICATION IS VALID FOLLOWING

AGREEMENT ON THE BARGAINING UNIT

The Parties:

Unite the Union

and

GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited (GSK)

1. Introduction

1)         Unite the Union (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 19 March 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by GSK (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “Automation Engineer; Engineering Maintenance Planner; Senior Lab Analyst; Microbiology Technologist; Microbiology Technical Expert; Senior Microbiology Technologist; Microbiology Process Monitoring (PM); Senior Microbiologist Process Monitoring (PM); Quality Coordinator (OQ); Senior Quality Coordinator (OQ).” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “GSK Barnard Castle Main Site.” The application was received by the CAC on 20 March 2025, and the CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application that same day.  The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 27 March 2025 which was copied to the Union.

2)         In accordance with section 263 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (the Act), the CAC Chair established a Panel to deal with the case.  The Panel consisted of Mrs Lisa Gettins, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Alistair Paton and Mr Matt Smith OBE. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Joanne Curtis.

3)         By a decision dated 28 April 2025 the Panel accepted the Union’s application. Following this decision, and after a period of negotiation the parties reached agreement on the appropriate bargaining unit on 13 November 2025. The agreed bargaining unit was described as “Automation Engineer, Senior Lab Analyst, Microbiology Technical Expert, Senior Microbiology Technologist, Microbiology Process Monitoring (PM), Senior Microbiologist Process Monitoring (PM) and Senior Quality Coordinator (OQ) located at GSK Barnard Castle Main Site.”

2. Issues

4)         As the agreed bargaining unit differs from that proposed by the Union, the Panel is required by paragraph 20 of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule) to decide whether the Union’s application is valid or invalid within the terms of paragraphs 43 to 50 of the Schedule.

3. Membership and support check

5)         To assist the determination of two of the validity tests specified in the Schedule,  namely whether 10% of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit are members of the union (paragraph 45(a)) and whether a majority of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit (paragraph 45(b)), the Panel proposed an independent check of the level of union membership within the agreed bargaining unit. It was agreed with the parties that the Employer would supply to the Case Manager a list of the names, dates of birth and job titles of workers within the agreed bargaining unit, and that the Union would supply to the Case Manager a list of its paid-up members within that unit (including their dates of birth). It was explicitly agreed with both the parties that, to preserve confidentiality, the respective lists would not be copied to the other party and that agreement was confirmed in a letter dated 18 November 2025 from the Case Manager to both parties.

6)         The information from the Employer and the Union was received by the CAC on 20 November 2025. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

7)         The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 55 workers in the agreed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 43 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the agreed bargaining unit was 39, a membership level of 70.91%.

8)         A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 20 November 2025, and the parties were invited to comment on the result of the check and the further tests as set out in a letter dated 18 November 2025.

4. Union’s comments on the report and validity tests

9)         In an e mail to the Case Manager dated 20 November 2025 the Union said that it had no further comments to make at this stage.

5. Employer’s comments on the report and validity tests

10)       In a letter to the Case Manager dated 25 November 2025 the Employer said that it had a long-standing history of recognition and collective bargaining with two Trade Unions (Unite and the GMB) at Barnard Castle Main Site and at other locations. “As such, GSK has long been supportive of these joint recognition arrangements and many of the employees in the bargaining unit have chosen to be members of a trade union in light of existing bargaining arrangements and for a variety of personal reasons. We do not consider that the Unite membership amongst this discrete group of employees at Barnard Castle is indicative of their support for a small, fragmented recognition arrangement with Unite only.” The Employer said that many of the workers in the bargaining unit were relatively senior and currently had “their reward and job grading determined by GSK’s pay and grading system which sits outside the national collective bargaining arrangements.” The Employer said that this allowed it to evaluate roles based on knowledge, complexity, and responsibility relative to other positions.

11)       The Employer said that it did not believe that that the level of union membership in the bargaining unit was indicative of a desire for such workers to be subject to collective bargaining with “Unite only” and that the workers were not aware at this time “how such a bargaining arrangement with Unite will impact on their future terms and conditions and the approach to be adopted to the application or otherwise of the GSK pay and grading system. These issues will need considerable thought and discussion, and it is our firm belief that the employees in this bargaining unit should be able to express their views on this CAC application given the specific circumstances.”

12)       The Employer said that it had had a detailed meeting with the Union on 11 November 2025 to discuss the bargaining unit and next steps. The Employer said that as a result of these discussions, the parties had requested an additional stay until 16 January 2026 “to enable the parties to involve Acas in discussions to seek to agree a sensible and responsible voluntary ballot process recognising the issues we have highlighted above. This was on the basis that once the ballot terms were agreed, Unite would withdraw the CAC application so that a voluntary recognition ballot process can be pursued and the statutory process would no longer be required. The CAC refused this stay and is now proceeding with the statutory process.”

13)       The Employer concluded by saying that a ballot was required to preserve good industrial relations in respect of existing national collective bargaining arrangements, noting that any new recognition granted would sit outside the national joint bargaining arrangements with both Unite and the GMB. The Employer said, “many employees within the bargaining unit may not be aware of this and it is important that they are provided with an opportunity to vote.”

6. Considerations

14)       The Panel is required to decide whether the Union’s application is valid or invalid within the terms of paragraphs 43 to 50 of the Schedule. In reaching its decision the Panel has carefully considered the submissions of the parties and all the other evidence before it.

15)       The Panel is satisfied that the application is not rendered invalid by any of the provisions in paragraphs 44 and 46 to 50 of the Schedule. The remaining issue for the Panel to decide is whether the application is invalid under paragraph 45 of the Schedule.

Paragraph 45(a)

16)       Under paragraph 45(a) of the Schedule an application is invalid unless the Panel decides that members of the Union constitute at least 10 per cent of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit. The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (see paragraphs 5 to 8 above) showed that 70.91% of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 6 above, the Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties. The Panel has therefore decided that members of the Union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit as required by paragraph 45(a) of the Schedule.

Paragraph 45(b)

17)       Paragraph 45(b) provides that the application in question is invalid unless the CAC decides that a majority of the workers constituting the agreed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit. The Panel notes that the membership check conducted by the Case Manager (see paragraphs 5 to 8 above) showed that 70.91% of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit were Union members. The Panel also notes that the Employer has not sought to put forward any arguments that the application is invalid. Instead, the Employer has argued that workers in the bargaining unit should be provided with an opportunity to vote on the issue of recognition as the workers would not be aware of the fact that if recognition were to be granted this would sit outside of the existing national collective bargaining arrangements.

18)       The Panel, at this stage, is testing the likelihood of majority support and the evidence to support the position that the Union has established a likelihood of majority support for collective bargaining within the bargaining unit. At this stage the Panel is not determining whether any of the criteria for holding a ballot have been met. On the basis of the evidence before it, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the level of union membership constitutes sufficient evidence for the Panel to conclude that, on the balance of probabilities, a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit, as required by paragraph 45(b) of the Schedule.

7. Decision 

19)       For the reasons given in paragraphs 14 - 18 above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is not invalid, and that the CAC is proceeding with the application.

Panel

Mrs Lisa Gettins, Panel Chair

Mr Alistair Paton

Mr Matt Smith OBE

1 December 2025