Decision

Bargaining Unit Decision

Updated 6 June 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1449(2025)

05 June 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聽

and

TAC Healthcare Group Limited

1. Introduction

1)聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 Unite the Union (the Union) submitted an application to the Central Arbitration Committee (the CAC) dated 22 January 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by TAC Healthcare Group Limited (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising 바카라 사이트淥ffshore Medics, working on the Repsol Resource UK Limited contract in the UK Continental Shelf.바카라 사이트澛� The application was received by the CAC on 22 January 2025 and the CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application by a letter of the same date.聽 The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 29 January 2025, which was copied to the Union.

2)聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 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.聽 The Panel consisted of Ms Naeema Choudry, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Alistair Paton and Mr Matt Smith OBE.聽 For the purposes of this decision, Mr Alistair Paton was replaced by Mr Derek Devereux.聽 The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kate Norgate.聽

3)聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 By a decision dated 13 March 2025 the Panel accepted the Union바카라 사이트檚 application.聽 The parties then entered a period of negotiation in an attempt to reach agreement on the appropriate bargaining unit.聽 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.聽 A bargaining unit hearing was held on 13 May 2025 and the names of those who attended the hearing are appended to this decision. To accommodate the hearing the Panel extended the period within which it was required to determine the bargaining unit to 27 May 2025 and by this decision has further extended it to 5 June 2025.

4)聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 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. The Panel sets out the statutory requirements relating to the issue in more detail below.

2. Summary of the submissions made by the Union

5)聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Union submitted that its proposed bargaining unit comprising 바카라 사이트淥ffshore Medics working on the Repsol Resources UK Limited contract in the UK Continental Shelf바카라 사이트� was an appropriate bargaining unit.

6)聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Union contended that the Offshore Medics who worked on the Repsol Resources UK Limited contract in the UK Continental Shelf were dedicated to this client as stated on their terms and conditions of employment, as their work location. 聽Further, they were identified within the business as the contacts for Repsol Medics. 聽聽To demonstrate these points the Union relied upon two sample contracts of employment, copies of which it had provided with its submissions. 聽The Union said that by contrast, in the Employer바카라 사이트檚 response, the Employer had maintained that it did not have dedicated employees supporting one client, in this case Repsol Resources UK Ltd, that their terms and conditions of employment did not relate to that client, and that the employees could support any client that they had in their capacity as an offshore medic.

7)聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Union said that while it is accepted that clause 6 within the contracts of employment provided a mobility clause, this did not mean that, in reality, this group of workers worked on various different contracts in various different locations. This was not the case.聽 The reality of work for those workers was that they worked consistently on the Repsol contract, at the same location. Some employees had worked on the Repsol contract, at the same workplace, for around 20 years. It was submitted that there was no history of this grouping of employees being asked to work from different workplaces, contracts or locations, despite clause 6 of the employment contract. The Union argued that the Employer바카라 사이트檚 position focused on the mobility clause in the contract, the Union adding that the industrial reality was however clear, that they had a base and a place of work. 聽There had only been one example identified where an employee had moved to another contract but this had been at the request of the employee in question, but there was never a situation where a worker would sometimes work on the Repsol contract and then other times on other contracts. 聽聽The Union also believed that it was important to highlight that the Employer was not saying that the mobility clauses had ever been used.聽 The Union argued that the concern was that they may need to聽 use the mobility clause at an unspecified time in the future.

8)聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Union submitted that as at the date of this submission, it believed that the number of offshore workers in the proposed bargaining unit was 16, of whom 15 were Unite members.聽 The Union explained that it was a standalone contract that TAC Healthcare Group Ltd had with Repsol Resources UK Limited. This was separate to any other contracts it had with other offshore clients. It had specific terms and conditions that related to the specific requirements of Repsol Resources UK Limited (e.g. working pattern, holidays, etc). These requirements were different for other contracts that TAC Healthcare Group Ltd held with other offshore clients.聽 The Union said that the Employer must secure agreement from Repsol Resources UK Limited for any variations to the existing contract (e.g. increasing salary).聽

9)聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Union maintained that due to the unique nature of the offshore workforce, similar bargaining arrangements to those being proposed existed between Unite and several undertakings that were similar to TAC Healthcare Group Ltd.聽 For example, Unite was recognised by The MCL GROUP (INT) Limited in respect of its offshore medics who worked on the Harbour Energy contract, an almost identical recognition claim that was agreed with the assistance of Acas. Unite was also recognised by United Healthcare Global Medical for its offshore medics who worked on the Shell UK contract.

10)聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Union said that while the skill sets of the workers in the agreed bargaining groups were similar, the terms and conditions in relation to pay, hours and holidays were quite distinct, which was the same for the contracts that TAC Healthcare Group Ltd had with its other clients that it supplied offshore medics to. 聽聽In this case the proposed bargaining unit had specific pay, hours and holidays which related to their work on the Repsol contract. 聽It was dictated by TAC Healthcare Group Ltd바카라 사이트檚 contract with Repsol, and therefore supported the Union바카라 사이트檚 view that this group of workers were compatible with effective management and were currently effectively managed this way.聽 The Union said that it also successfully operated other offshore bargaining arrangements, which included with Repsol Resources UK Limited.

11)聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Union believed that as there were existing working examples of a similar nature across several offshore medical providers, and that it was a strong factor that pointed towards the proposed unit바카라 사이트檚 compatibility with effective management.

12)聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Union submitted that the terms and conditions of the offshore medics in the proposed bargaining unit were homogenous and were very clearly distinct from other TAC Healthcare Group Ltd offshore medics who worked across the rest of the UK Continental Shelf, as they were defined by the contract between TAC Healthcare Group Ltd and Repsol Resources UK Limited.聽 Consequently, there was virtually no practical integration of the offshore medics in the bargaining unit with other offshore medics employed by TAC healthcare Group Ltd for different clients. The Union said that it was informed by members that their contracts dictated that the offshore assets that they were on, were the ones that they were assigned to. 聽The Union said that most members had worked on the TAC Repsol Resources UK Limited contract for several years (some over 20 years) without ever having been asked to move to another TAC contract.

13)聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Union explained that the offshore medics who worked on the Repsol Resources UK Limited contract in the UK Continental Shelf had contacted Unite in March 2024 and asked what negotiation Unite could undertake for them. 聽It was explained to them what was required for Unite to seek to get recognition for the purposes of collective bargaining. Over the rest of 2024 membership of the union grew, until the vast majority had joined Unite, and the recognition process started.聽 The Union said that on several occasions it had tried to engage constructively with TAC Healthcare Group Ltd to find a voluntary way forward. The Union had offered to meet with and without Acas. Unfortunately, the Union were met with resistance at every stage of the process.聽 The Union said that it had supplied membership data to the CAC for an independent audit to determine the percentage of the bargaining unit that were union members. The Employer first denied that they had any workers on the Repsol Resources UK Limited contract and then failed to respond to the CAC. 聽The Union submitted that this obfuscation was because its proposed bargaining unit was an appropriate vehicle through which to conduct collective negotiations and bargaining with this group of workers.

14)聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Union asked that the CAC consider the industrial reality of the Employer바카라 사이트檚 position: the employer was only seeking to contest the appropriateness of the unit now because it was seeking to defeat a claim for statutory recognition.聽 The Union submitted that its current views of the appropriateness of the bargaining unit, coupled with the Employer바카라 사이트檚 resistance to the appropriateness of the bargaining unit, pointed strongly towards the proposed unit being appropriate.

15)聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Union said that Unite had many recognition agreements for offshore workers in the UK Continental Shelf that covered over 8000 members and was the largest trade union that operated in the UK Continental Shelf.聽 The Union further adding that the proposed bargaining unit did not cut across any existing arrangements, and that to the best of its knowledge there were no competing applications for union recognition in respect of any group of employees who could be comparable to the proposed bargaining unit of Offshore Medics working on the Repsol Resources UK Limited contract in the UK Continental Shelf. 聽聽The Union said that it was therefore very unlikely to result in a proliferation of smaller competing bargaining units if the proposed bargaining unit was accepted.

16)聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Union submitted that as to fragmentation, there was nothing to suggest that the existence of this bargaining unit and a group of unrepresented workers across the rest of the TAC Healthcare Group Ltd, was generally incompatible with effective management. A number of other offshore services companies operated effectively in this way. The limited fragmentation which this arrangement represented simply reflected the current reality of the diverse local and functional terms and conditions and physical circumstances of the various groups of workers employed by the undertaking.聽聽 聽The proposed bargaining unit would not risk a proliferation of similar small competing bargaining units. Nor would the overall bargaining landscape, which would result from recognition, lead to any undesirable fragmentation of an otherwise homogenous existing workforce.

17)聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Union submitted that Offshore Medics were a very specialised role offshore. The role involved providing a range of medical services to offshore personnel, from emergency treatment to general medical care and advice. Many also carried out safety roles and inductions for new offshore personnel. Offshore medics were highly trained and skilled with many coming from a military background.聽 They were all front-line operational roles who reported directly to the Offshore Installation Manager (OIM).聽 The types of issues to be negotiated with a union in relation to an offshore workforce were unique to that workforce. For example:

(a) Different statutory employment law provisions applied to an offshore workforce;

(b) Matters relating to pay frequently concern the impact of delayed flights or bad weather on the employee바카라 사이트檚 working hours and pay for that period;

(c) Welfare and disciplinary issues were very specific to the industry (for example, negotiating appropriate nighttime shutdowns on rigs to allow proper periods of compensatory rest between shifts; flight safety issues; and rules around stop-over days).

18)聽聽聽聽聽聽 The workers in the proposed bargaining unit were line managed centrally by the Respondent바카라 사이트檚 Kris Muirhead from their Aberdeen office.聽 The uniqueness of their terms and conditions and working practices strongly suggested that it was appropriate for them to be included in a single bargaining unit.聽 The workers were all based out of the Employer바카라 사이트檚 Aberdeen office. While they lived at addresses throughout the UK, they were all centrally mobilised from the Aberdeen office.聽 The Union believed that the single location of the workforce pointed strongly towards it being an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining.

19)聽聽聽聽聽聽 In its concluding comments, the Union said that it was seeking a decision from the CAC Panel to the effect that the proposed bargaining unit was appropriate.

3. Summary of the submissions made by the Employer

20)聽聽聽聽聽聽 By way of background the Employer explained that TAC Healthcare Ltd provided Occupational Health, Private General Practitioner, Industrial Hygiene, Physiotherapy and other related services to a wide range of clients in different market sectors. It also provided Offshore Medics to the Oil and Gas Sector to a wide-ranging group of clients.

21)聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Offshore Medics in the Union바카라 사이트檚 proposed bargaining unit worked on specific offshore installations in the North Sea. The offshore installations that they currently worked on were all operated by one client. 聽聽It did not cover offshore Medics who worked on other installations, Medics who worked on an ad hoc basis on the identified client installations, or Medics who discontinued working on the installations highlighted in the recognition application.

22)聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Employer explained that proposed bargaining unit represented a very small population of a larger cohort of its Offshore Medics (less than 10%). As part of the larger cohort of 162 workers, their terms and conditions of employment and associated benefits were broadly the same.聽 In particular, a mobility clause stating that they may work for any client on any installation to meet the requirements of the business.

23)聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Employer stated that the Union바카라 사이트檚 proposed bargaining unit was specific to 18 workers whose current place of work was on one of the 8 offshore assets and one land base operated by one client.聽 It did not include the 62 other locum medics who were employed with the same terms and conditions of employment, and who supported and worked on the same offshore assets as and when they were needed on an ad hoc basis. 聽聽Due to the nature of the offshore working patterns, this could mean that a locum may work for a significant period of time in order to allow cover for the appropriate shift patterns. 聽聽However, in answer to a question from the Panel the Employer clarified for the Panel that over a period of 12 months only 4 had moved.聽 The Employer said that 1 had left to go to another asset, 1 or 2 had asked for a transfer, and 1 wanted to change rotation.聽 聽聽

24)聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Employer said that in order to operate its business in an efficient manner, its medics were required to be mobile and work on any of its clients바카라 사이트� installations at any time. This included any individual who had joined the organisation as part of a Transfer of Undertaking. The Employer said that this was highlighted in the terms and conditions of employment, a copy of which the Employer provided with its submissions. 聽In answer to a question from the Panel as how often workers had to move for commercial reasons rather than a direct request, the Employer said that it did not have any examples where individuals had been asked to move for commercial reasons.聽

25)聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Employer believed that managing recognition for a small part of a larger cohesive population of its business would create fragmentation. The Employer said that should this group of workers have pay negotiations agreed but then deployed to a new client and this could create a disparity within the wider workforce.聽 It could also create commercial contractual inefficiencies, which could affect the company financially.

26)聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Employer maintained that negotiations regarding standard terms and conditions of employment, for example PMI and Life assurance, could not be consulted on for an individual group of staff because, as a business, it was reliant on including all members of staff for costing purposes to ensure that it obtained the most competitive outcome that was fair to all staff, and not just selected groups.

27)聽聽聽聽聽聽 In was the Employer바카라 사이트檚 view that rostering could not be negotiated as it was not formally part of the employment contract or a term and condition of employment. The Employer asserted that rostering and the flexibility required was aligned to the commercial contract and the operational needs of running that contract, which would be driven by the client rather than TAC.

28)聽聽聽聽聽聽 Finally, the Employer said that its management and support structure was set up to support its offshore workforce and ensure inclusion and fairness for all in the discussions surrounding employment contracts, in order to allow its organisation to operate across client groups and ensure that it was meeting its commercial contracts efficiently.

4. Considerations

29)聽聽聽聽聽聽 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,聽 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) so far as they do not conflict with that need.聽 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 employer바카라 사이트檚 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. The Panel must also have regard to paragraph 171 of the Schedule which provides that 바카라 사이트淸i]n 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.바카라 사이트澛� The Panel바카라 사이트檚 decision has been taken after a full and detailed consideration of the views of both parties as expressed in their written submissions and amplified at the hearing.

30)聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Panel바카라 사이트檚 first responsibility is to decide, in accordance with paragraph 19(2) of the Schedule, whether the Union바카라 사이트檚 proposed bargaining unit is appropriate.聽 There is no requirement on the Panel to seek to identify a more appropriate bargaining unit if it finds that the union바카라 사이트檚 proposed bargaining unit is appropriate. The Panel considers that in this case the Union바카라 사이트檚 proposed bargaining unit is not incompatible with effective management and is therefore appropriate.聽聽

31)聽聽聽聽聽聽 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 bargaining 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. There are no existing national and local bargaining arrangements.聽 The bargaining unit does not give rise to fragmentation. At the time of the Panel바카라 사이트檚 decision there is no evidence before the Panel of any demand for recognition for collective bargaining purposes on the part of other workers within the Employer바카라 사이트檚 workforce. As far as the characteristics of workers are concerned, the proposed bargaining unit consists of a distinct and identifiable group of offshore Medics working on the Repsol contract who share many common terms and conditions of employment in relation to the specific requirements of the contract.聽 The workers in the proposed bargaining unit are all front-line operational roles who reported directly to the Offshore Installation Manager (OIM). 聽They carry out a specialised role providing a range of medical services to offshore personnel.聽 The Panel notes that, under their contracts, workers in the proposed bargaining unit can be required to work on different contracts in different locations.聽 However, the workers in the proposed bargaining unit had worked consistently on the Repsol contract, and the examples provided by the Employer contesting this point were based on hypothetical cases. 聽聽All of the workers are based at the same location on the Repsol contract. The Panel is satisfied that its decision is consistent with the object set out in paragraph 171 of the Schedule.聽聽聽聽聽

5. Decision

32)聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Panel바카라 사이트檚 decision is that the appropriate bargaining unit is that specified by the Union in its application, namely, Offshore Medics, working on the Repsol Resource UK Limited contract in the UK Continental Shelf.

Panel聽

Ms Naeema Choudry, Chair of the Panel

Mr Derek Devereux

Mr Matt Smith OBE

05 June 2025

6. Appendix

Names of those who attended the hearing:

For the Union

John Boland聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 -聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 Unite the Union, Regional Officer

Mark Lyon聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 聽聽聽 -聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 Unite the Union, Legal Officer

Jillian Merchant聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 -聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 Partner/Solicitor Advocate Thompsons Solicitors聽

For the Employer

Arlene Park聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 -聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 Senior Human Resources Business Partner

Hayley Cook聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 -聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 Group HR Director聽

Ronan Jennings聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 -聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 Occupational Health Director