Decision

Bargaining Unit Decision

Updated 2 September 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1534(2026)

1 September 2026

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DETERMINATION OF THE BARGAINING UNIT

The Parties:

GMB

and

Dales Marine Services

1. Introduction

1)       GMB (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 18 March 2026 (received by the CAC on 23 March 2026) that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Dales Marine Services (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “all grades of Welders, Platers, steelworkers, supervisors, labourers and apprentices in those trades working in the fabrication department at Dales Marine Service’s Aberdeen site.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “Dales Marine Services, York Street, Aberdeen, AB11 5DP.” The Employer submitted a response dated 30 April 2026.

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 Ms Susan Cox, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Mark Pennifold and Mr Ian Hanson QPM. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Joanne Curtis.

3)         By a decision dated 10 June 2026 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 Panel held a virtual hearing to decide that issue on 18 August 2026. The names of those who attended the hearing are appended to this decision. The parties provided written submissions and supporting documentation prior to the hearing. At the hearing the parties provided oral submissions and answered questions raised by the Panel, for which the Panel is grateful.

2. The issue to be decided by the Panel

4)         The Panel is required, by paragraph 19(2) of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule), to decide whether the Union’s 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. Paragraphs 19B(1) and (2) state that, in making those decisions, the Panel must take into account:

(a)    the need for the unit to be compatible with effective management; and

(b)   the matters listed in paragraph 19B(3) of the Schedule so far as they do not conflict with that need.

5)         The matters listed in paragraph 19B(3) are:

(a)   the views of the employer and the union;

(b)   existing national and local bargaining arrangements;

(c) the desirability of avoiding small fragmented bargaining units within an undertaking;

(d)   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

(e)   the location of workers.

6)         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.

7)         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.

3. Factual matters clarified during the hearing

8)         The Employer provides ship repair and maintenance and related services to the offshore and energy industries. It operates from three sites, in Aberdeen, Leith and Greenock, and has a total workforce of approximately 200 employees. It employs 91 workers at the Aberdeen site, comprising of office workers, management and operational employees. Aberdeen’s operational workforce consists of 69 operational employees, an Operations Manager and an Assistant Operations Manager giving a total of 71. There are 40 employees in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit, holding the roles of Welder, Chargehand Welder, Steelworker, Chargehand Steelworker, Foreman Steelworker, Apprentice Steelworker, Plater and Labourer. The operational roles not included in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit are Engineer, Chargehand Engineer, Foreman Engineer, Apprentice Engineer, Crane Operator, Painter, Foreman Painter, Material Controller, Storeman, Trainee Dockmaster, Joiner, Machinist, Assistant Operations Manager and Operations Manager. (The Employer’s sites in Greenock and Leith each have their own Assistant Operations Manager and Operations Manager overseeing work there.)

9)         The Union’s application refers to a fabrication department. The Employer clarified that it did not operate by reference to departments. The Employer explained that it had a fabrication workshop where employees involved in fabrication and some of the machinery they used was based but that these workers moved across all parts of the Aberdeen site as required to carry out their work, and between sites if needed. The Employer said that such workers might also travel to ports and client sites. The Employer said that it also had an engineering workshop which was kept entirely separate from fabrication operations to avoid the risk of cross-contamination. The Employer explained that the workers based there also worked across the site, and at other sites if needed. The Employer said that although carrying out different tasks, the operational employees worked together in closely integrated teams on projects. They had the same contract of employment (which was supplied to the Panel in a pdf document entitled “Contract of employment – Trade”). The hourly rates of pay operated by the Employer for its operational employees covered employees who fell inside and outside the proposed bargaining unit. For the roles in Aberdeen, the rate of the Foreman Engineer and Foreman Steelworker were the same. The Employer said there was one rate of pay for Chargehands, one “skilled rate”, one “semi-skilled rate” and common rates for Apprentices. The Employer said there were separate rates for some of the roles, including Foreman Painter, Painter, Crane Operator and Trainee Dockmaster.

10)       When the CAC carried out a check of the Union’s membership in the proposed bargaining unit, the list provided by the Employer included the roles of Machinist and Joiner, the employer classed these job titles as fabrication. The Union did not object to these roles being included in the check, but they were not included in the bargaining unit proposed in its application.

4. Submissions for the Union

11)       The Union believed its proposed bargaining unit was appropriate because:

• all workers in the proposed bargaining unit were employed on similar tasks;
• the Union was experienced in representing the trades in the proposed bargaining unit;
• all employees in the proposed bargaining unit had similar working patterns and working conditions; and
• most members who had joined the Union during the Union’s recognition campaign worked in the fabrication department, demonstrating they wanted union recognition.

12)       The Union said that fabrication workers were a distinct group within the operational workforce, the other group being engineers. The Union emphasised that there was a clear delineation between the two groups. The Union said it did not believe that its proposed unit would lead to small, fragmented bargaining units because the workers saw themselves as a distinct grouping on site.

13)       The Union also said, “although the employer suggests there are other interdependent roles within the employer, this would be the same within any employer. However, this doesn’t stop a bargaining unit from working that is based around certain trades or skillset. It is commonplace for GMB to represent welders and fabricators when it comes to this industry. Although there is not a hard and fast demarcation of skills to different unions, there is a traditional nature to which workers join which unions generally. We have seen no information to contradict our assertion that workers within the proposed bargaining unit have similar working patterns and working conditions. We are aware that the employer has suggested that other workers also share these patterns and conditions. That doesn’t mean our proposed bargaining unit wouldn’t be compatible with effective management though and it is not uncommon for working patterns to be similar across a whole employer. This distinct group of workers have come together to push request GMB recognition, this comes from them working together and deciding that bargaining through a trade union is something they wanted to achieve. How the workers have pursued recognition as a unit suggests that they do see themselves as a definable unit within the workplace.”

14)       The Union said it had chosen to limit its proposed bargaining unit to the Aberdeen site. It accepted that it was not uncommon for workers to move between the Employer’s sites, but that the workers the Union sought to represent all clearly identified as Aberdeen-based workers.

15)       The Union considered that its proposed unit was compatible with effective management. It said that it would be for the Employer to decide if it wanted to treat those outside the bargaining unit differently. The Union said if it “bargained for these workers and got an increase for fabrication workers at Aberdeen then the Company would need to decide if it applied this outside of those workers.”

5. Submissions for the Employer

16)       The Employer said it recognised and respected the right of its employees to join a trade union and to seek collective representation and that it did not oppose employee representation in principle. It submitted, however, that the proposed bargaining unit was not appropriate because it did not reflect the way in which the workforce was organised, managed or deployed in practice and was incompatible with its integrated operational structure. The Employer said that the proposed bargaining unit would create an artificial division within a workforce that was employed on common terms and conditions, managed through common processes, and routinely deployed across disciplines and locations. The Employer said that workers within the proposed bargaining unit were managed through the same operational management structure as other operational employees. The Employer said that, “whilst employees may report to different supervisors or foremen depending on their trade discipline, strategic and operational management decisions are made by a common management team responsible for the delivery of work across the Aberdeen operation and throughout the wider business. The distinction proposed by the Union does not therefore reflect a standalone business unit with separate management, separate employment arrangements or separate operational objectives.”

17)       The Employer submitted that the characteristics of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were substantially the same as those of its other operational employees. It said: “Employees:

• are employed under the same contracts of employment;
• are subject to the same Employee Handbook;
• work under the same policies and procedures;
• participate in the same performance and HR processes;
• receive remuneration through common pay structures; and
• have access to the same employee benefits.

There are no materially different terms and conditions that distinguish fabrication employees from other operational employees.”

18)       The Employer said that the proposed bargaining unit would create a fragmented bargaining arrangement within an otherwise integrated workforce. The proposed bargaining unit excluded other operational employees who:

• worked alongside fabrication employees;
• participated in the same projects;
• were managed through the same structures;
• shared the same employment terms and conditions; and
• were subject to identical company policies and procedures.

The Employer said that the creation of a bargaining unit limited to one relatively small group would result in different employee representative arrangements applying to employees who worked together and were managed together. The Employer said that this would not reflect the reality of the workforce structure and would increase the risk of fragmentation across the business.

19)       The Employer said that the proposed bargaining unit posed risks:

“Risks to business:

Administrative burden caused by managing multiple agreements (collective, workforce and individual), separate pay scales and work rules.

Inefficient operations due to different rules preventing flexible staff deployment, shift swapping and cross-location and cross-department collaboration.

Low morale and workplace friction caused by variations in consulting, benefits and policies.

Risks to employees:

Workplace fracturing, low morale and rivalry.

Limited mobility caused by separate terms/rules preventing or making moving between departments difficult.

Erosion of solidarity which is of grave concern to the business given the current culture of cross-department team working and shared purpose and ownership which drives our operational success and will be vital to service in this highly demanding sector.”

20)       In addition, the Employer said that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit included the role of labourer, a role which was not dedicated exclusively to fabrication activities. The Employer said that the labourer operated as a shared operational resource, supporting multiple trades and workstreams across the Aberdeen operation as required. The Employer said that this further illustrated the integrated nature of the workforce and highlighted the practical difficulties in drawing clear boundaries around the proposed bargaining unit.

21)       The Employer explained that although employees may have a primary work location, the Employer operated a multi-site model across Scotland. It said that employees were routinely deployed between locations to meet customer requirements, project demands and workload fluctuations: “resource sharing between locations is a longstanding and fundamental feature of the Company’s operating model. Employees may temporarily work at alternative sites to support project delivery, balance workloads, improve utilisation levels, support business continuity and provide development opportunities. This mobility demonstrates that employees do not operate as isolated site-based groups but as part of a wider integrated workforce.” The Employer said it had always managed workforce matters on a company-wide basis through common policies, procedures, pay arrangements and management structures: “we have a workforce agreement in place that covers working hours, overtime and allowances. We have an Employee Voice Forum with reps from each location regularly engaging with management on any workforce feedback.”

22)       Whilst the Employer accepted that the CAC’s primary consideration was the appropriateness of the bargaining unit, it submitted that the current market environment highlighted the importance of maintaining workforce flexibility. The Employer said that the marine, offshore and energy sectors continued to experience uncertainty and reduced activity in traditional oil and gas markets. The Employer said that vessel traffic in the Port of Aberdeen had reduced materially and that the Port had subsequently taken steps in response to market conditions. The Employer said it had also experienced a reduction in certain categories of oil- and gas-related work, including smaller vessel repairs, maintenance activity and project mobilisation work. The Employer said that the evidence “demonstrates reduced UK offshore drilling activity compared to historic levels, lower rig counts and a reduction in North Sea Platform Supply Vessel numbers. In response to these market changes, Dales Marine has adopted a strategic focus on diversification and energy transition, including an objective of generating approximately 30-35% of revenue from renewable energy sectors by 2030. The ability to deploy employees flexibly across projects, disciplines and locations is therefore increasingly important in maintaining employment, supporting business resilience and securing future opportunities.”

23)       An appropriate approach, the Employer said, would be to assess a wider bargaining unit that reflected the Company’s integrated management structure and operational deployment model rather than a narrow grouping limited to Aberdeen fabrication employees only. The Employer considered that any recognition arrangements should reflect the workforce structure and the operational realities of the business as a whole.

24)       In summary, the Employer said that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was not appropriate because it:

• did not reflect the management structure of the business;
• did not reflect the common terms and conditions under which employees were employed;
• did not reflect established workforce deployment practices;
• created an artificial distinction within an integrated workforce;
• risked introducing fragmentation into a business that operated as a single organisational entity; and
• was incompatible with the Company’s need to maintain effective management and workforce flexibility.

6. Considerations

25)       The Panel bases its deliberations on the legislative provisions relevant to the issue before it, set out in paragraphs 4 to 7 above.

26)       The Panel is required, by paragraph 19(2) of the Schedule, to decide whether the Union’s 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. The Panel bears in mind that the requirement is that the proposed bargaining unit be appropriate, not that it be the optimum or best possible unit. The focus is on the question whether the bargaining unit is compatible with effective management. It does not need to be compatible with the most effective management nor with the precise management structure that the Employer wants to adopt. Against the background of that overall consideration, the Panel has to take into account the matters listed in paragraph 19B(3) of the Schedule, insofar as those matters do not conflict with the need for the unit to be compatible with effective management. The parties agree that sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 19B(3)(b) does not arise on the facts of this case as there are no existing bargaining arrangements.

27)       The Panel finds that the bargaining unit proposed by the Union in its application is not compatible with effective management and therefore not appropriate. The proposed unit includes most but not all the roles that both parties accept are involved solely in fabrication work, since it excludes the joiners and machinist. On the other hand, it does include the role of labourer, which is involved in activities across various parts of the Employer’s site and not just on fabrication work. It is not compatible with effective management for the scope of the unit to be so ill-defined since bargaining would then cover most but not all of the workers involved in fabrication work and a role that is involved in a broader range of the Employer’s activities. This could lead to the existence of small fragmented bargaining units within the undertaking. As the High Court put it in R (Cable & Wireless Services UK Ltd) v CAC and another [2008] EWHC 115 (Admin), “it is important to see whether such a unit is self-contained. Fragmentation carries with it the notion that there is no obvious identifiable boundary to the unit in question so that it will leave the opportunity for other such units to exist and that will be detrimental to effective management”.

28)       Having decided that the bargaining unit proposed in the Union’s application is not appropriate the Panel now needs to decide what the appropriate bargaining unit should be.

7. Views of the Employer and the Union

29)       On the basis of what it said during the hearing, the Union’s view is now that the unit should be all those doing fabrication work at Aberdeen, including the Joiners and Machinist. The Union appears to be willing to accept that it is not appropriate for the labourer to be included if that role is deployed across a range of different work on the site, not solely on fabrication, and the Panel accepts that it is.

30)       From what it said at the hearing, the Employer’s position appeared to be that the appropriate bargaining unit would be the operational employees in Aberdeen. The simplified organisational chart that the Employer included in its written submissions indicated that its operational employees were all those included in its list of the Aberdeen operational workforce other than the Operations manager and the Assistant Operations Manager. When asked to confirm that that was indeed its position in correspondence after the hearing, the Employer then said that its proposed bargaining unit was its entire operational workforce across all its sites. That was not the position it was maintaining at the hearing and so the Union did not have the opportunity to comment on it then. Alternatively, the Employer said, the unit should be all 71 members of the operational workforce at Aberdeen. That would include the Operations Manager and Assistant Operations Manager.

8. Avoiding small fragmented bargaining units

31)       The Panel accepts the Union’s argument that it would be possible to define a bargaining unit by reference to all those roles at the Aberdeen site performing solely fabrication work. During the hearing, the parties effectively identified and agreed what those roles were. That would mean, however, that the Labourer role would fall outside the unit, because it is involved in a broader range of work. The other operational employees, which include engineers but also other roles, would also fall outside the unit. Although a unit made up of fabrication employees could not be characterised as small, it could lead to the creation of other bargaining units within the operational workforce that were so. The Panel considers that a unit made up of all operational employees in Aberdeen would avoid the development of small fragmented bargaining units, at least within that section of the workforce.

9. Characteristics of workers

32)       The Panel notes that many of the operational employees could be characterised as either involved in metalwork or engineering. There are other roles, however, such as painter, joiner and crane operator, that fall within neither of those general categorisations. On the other hand, the roles of all the operational employees involve hands-on work. The Panel heard no submissions on whether the Operations Manager and Assistant Operations Manager were also involved in any hands-on work, but it assumes that their roles are wholly or mainly concerned with the management of the hands-on work being done by others. The Panel considers that this commonality of characteristics also supports a bargaining unit of all operational employees in Aberdeen, excluding the managers, whose roles have different characteristics.

10. Location of workers

33)       The Panel notes the Employer’s comments in its written submissions that the bargaining unit should be “a wider bargaining unit that reflects the Company’s integrated management structure and operational deployment model rather than a narrow grouping limited to Aberdeen fabrication employees only”. However, as explained above, by the time of the hearing, both parties were proposing that the bargaining unit consist of employees based at Aberdeen. The Panel notes that some of the operational employees are on occasions called on to work at another of the Employer’s sites and that all operational employees share common terms and conditions and are covered by the same company policies, workforce agreement on hours and holidays and consultation arrangements. The Panel nevertheless accepts, as the parties appeared to do at the hearing, that it would be compatible with effective management for collective bargaining arrangements to be limited to the Aberdeen site. As noted above, in paragraph 26, a unit can be appropriate even if it is not the most effective unit there might be or does not comply with the precise management structure that the Employer wants to adopt.

11. Compatibility with effective management

34)       The Panel notes that limiting the bargaining unit to fabrication employees only would mean that some workers working closely alongside each other day to day on a project would fall within the unit and others would fall outside it. The Panel does not consider that that would be compatible with effective management. Whilst it accepts that in some undertakings employees who are covered by collective bargaining work alongside others who are not, in this case there are already established rates of pay that are common to workers some of whom would fall inside and some fall outside a fabrication-based unit. In these circumstances, pay differentials that may well arise between employees currently on the same rate of pay, as a result of collective bargaining, would be more than usually disruptive to the close team working on which the Employer’s operations depend. Conversations between employees about the subject of and progress of negotiations and their result are also likely to lead to a loss of productivity and affect workforce morale.

35)       A unit consisting of all operational employees in Aberdeen other than the Operations Manager and Assistant Operations Manager, on the other hand, would cover all those involved in operational work at that site who work alongside each other every day. It would avoid the danger of small fragmented bargaining units within the operational workforce. All these roles share the characteristic of involving hands-on operational work. All are on the same contract of employment and some share pay rates. All are at the same location, namely Aberdeen. The Panel also considers that this unit would be consistent with paragraph 171 of the Schedule in that it would further the object of encouraging and promoting fair and efficient practices and arrangements in the workplace, given that all the operational roles work so closely together and are managed as a team by the Aberdeen operations managers.

36)       For completeness, the Panel confirms that it is not convinced by the Employer’s argument that union recognition, whatever the bargaining unit, would not be compatible with effective management because it would necessarily lead to a reduction in the flexible deployment of its workforce, a flexibility which the Panel acknowledges is of great importance to the Employer. The statutory recognition procedure relates to pay, hours and holidays. It is far from clear that collective bargaining on these matters, or indeed any others, would necessarily lead to any reduction in the Employer’s ability flexibly to deploy the workers in the bargaining unit.

12. Decision

37)       The Panel’s decision is therefore that:

a. the Union’s proposed bargaining unit is not appropriate and

b. the appropriate bargaining unit is all operational employees at the Employer’s Aberdeen site, which, for the avoidance of doubt, excludes the Assistant Operations Manager and Operations Manager.

Panel

Ms Susan Cox, Panel Chair

Mr Mark Pennifold

Mr Ian Hanson QPM

1 September 2026

13. Appendix A

Union:

Keir Greenaway (GMB Scotland Senior Organiser)

Sean Robertson (GMB Scotland Organiser)

Michelle McDonald (GMB Scotland Organising Assistant)

Employer:

Marzena D’Arcy (Head of HR)

Kevin Paterson (CEO)

Stuart McLeod (Operations Director)