51茶馆

Case Number: TUR1/1460(2025)

19 May 2025

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECISION ON WHETHER TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATION

The Parties:

National Union of Journalists (NUJ)

and

Elsevier Limited

1. Introduction

1)聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 National Union of Journalists (NUJ) (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 3 April 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Elsevier Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising 鈥淓ditorial, Production, Marketing, Journal Office and Communications staff, excluding The Lancet Group Leadership Team, ultimately reporting to the Senior Vice President for The Lancet Group (Richard Horton), and working in the UK, including home鈥� based employees and those based at Elsevier鈥檚 UK offices (currently 125 London Wall, London EC2Y 5AS, UK) - all of the aforementioned staff with a UK contract, working on any of the Lancet Group titles, and based at any UK Elsevier office or with a home-based contract. The Lancet Leadership Team and the Executive Assistant are excluded from the proposed bargaining unit. For avoidance of doubt, the Lancet Leadership Team is made up of the following roles:

鈥� VP, Editorial Strategy & Innovation

鈥� RI & Risk Management Lead

鈥� Director, Marketing & Communications

鈥� Publishing Director

鈥� Director, Operations & Editorial Services

2)聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 The location of the bargaining unit was given as 125 London Wall, London, EC2Y 5AS and home-based employees who are allocated to this location鈥� The application was received by the CAC on 3 April 2025 and the CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 4 April 2025.聽 The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 10 April 2025 which was copied to the Union.

3)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 Mrs Lisa Gettins, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Mustafa Faruqi and Ms Joanne Kaye. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Joanne Curtis.

4) 聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 聽The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case.聽 The initial period expired on 17 April 2025.聽 The acceptance period was extended to 30 May 2025 in order to allow time for the parties to comment on the results of a membership check and for the Panel to consider said comments before arriving at a decision. 聽

2. Issues

5)聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Panel is required by paragraph 15 of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule) to decide whether the Union鈥檚 application to the CAC is valid within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9; is made in accordance with paragraphs 11 or 12; is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 33 to 42; and therefore, should be accepted.

3. Summary of the Union鈥檚 application

6)聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 In its application to the CAC the Union stated that it had made a request for recognition to the Employer dated 14 February 2025 and that the Employer responded on 28 February 2025 rejecting the request. The Union stated that in that letter the Employer had said 鈥渨e consider the proposed bargaining unit would be incompatible with effective management and incompatible with our aim to drive collaboration across the business. We already have effective support systems and resources in place to provide consistent support for our employees. As such, the request is not accepted.鈥� The Union provided copies of both letters with its application.

7)聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 When asked whether the Union had made a previous application under the Schedule for statutory recognition for workers in the proposed bargaining unit or a similar unit the Union answered, 鈥渘o.鈥� The Union stated that, following receipt of the request for recognition, the Employer did not propose that Acas should be requested to assist the parties.

8)聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Union stated that the total number of workers employed by the Employer was 1653 The Union stated that there were 190 workers in the proposed bargaining unit and that the Employer did not agree with this figure. When asked to state the number of union members in the proposed bargaining unit and to provide evidence to support this figure the Union said that the majority of workers within the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union and that detailed information on membership would be provided upon request due to the confidential nature of the information. When asked to provide evidence that the majority of workers in the bargaining unit would be likely to support recognition for collective bargaining the Union said, 鈥渄etailed information on membership will be provided upon request due to the confidential nature of the information.鈥�

9)聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Union stated that the reason for selecting the proposed bargaining unit was because it represented a coherent group of all the Lancet Group UK staff below senior leadership level. The Union said that the Executive Assistant role reported directly to the Senior Vice President and was excluded because the role did not carry out editorial work. The Union went on to say that 鈥渢he unit includes staff with common employment terms and conditions, who perform related and interdependent job functions. The unit is compatible with existing effective management structures, preserves operational workflows, and respects natural business divisions.鈥� The Union said that the bargaining unit had not been agreed with the Employer. In answer to the question whether there was any existing recognition agreement which it was aware of which covered any workers in the bargaining unit, the Union answered 鈥渘o.鈥�

10)聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Union confirmed that it held a current certificate of independence. The Union stated that it had copied its application and supporting documents to the Employer on 3 April 2025.

4. Summary of the Employer鈥檚 response to the Union鈥檚 application

11)聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Employer said that it had received the Union鈥檚 written request for recognition on 14 February 2025. The Employer said that it had responded to the request on 28 February 2025 rejecting the request. The Employer attached a copy of the letter.

12)聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Employer confirmed that it had received a copy of the Union鈥檚 application form from the Union on 3 April 2025. The Employer stated that it had not, before receiving a copy of the application form from the Union, agreed the bargaining unit and that it did not agree the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer said that the Union had applied 鈥渇or recognition for collective bargaining鈥� for two limited groups of employees of Elsevier Ltd based at its London Wall office, Nielsen House office in Oxford, Exeter office and home-based employees.^{[footnote 1]} The Employer went on to say that the proposed bargaining unit for the purposes of this application was 鈥渢he Editorial, Production, Marketing, Journal Office and Communications staff ultimately reporting to the Senior Vice President for The Lancet Group (Richard Horton), and working in the UK, including home鈥� based employees and those based at Elsevier鈥檚 UK offices (currently 125 London Wall, London EC2Y 5AS, UK) - all of the aforementioned staff with a UK contract, working on any of the Lancet Group titles, and based at any UK Elsevier office or with a home based contract.鈥� The Employer said that the proposed bargaining unit excluded 鈥淭he Lancet Leadership Team and the Executive Assistant.鈥�^{[footnote 2]} The Employer said that the bargaining units proposed by the Union in its respective applications were part of the Scientific, Technical and Medical Journals (STMJ) division of Elsevier. The Employer went on to say 鈥渢his part of the business is responsible for publishing premium journals under the Lancet and Cell Press families. This division is located in offices in different parts of the world reporting to a Managing Director of STMJ based in Amsterdam. There are also other employees working on Health & Medical Science, Life Science & Social Science and Physical Science journals that fall under STMJ. These employees are also publishers and editors based in the same locations as the employees presently assigned to work on the Lancet and Cell Press.鈥�

13)聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Employer went on to provide examples and said 鈥渨ithin the STMJ team based in London office there is a group of employees who work as part of the Print Content Development & Management job family such as editors or publishers. We have 260 employees in the London office in this job family of these it would appear that 149 employees would fall within the proposed Lancet BU and 31 within the Cell Press BU. 80 employees in this job family would be excluded from the proposed BUs containing the colleagues that they work alongside at the London Wall office who are in the same or similar job or role profiles. To provide an example of this within the Print Content Development & Management job family there are 72 roles in the same profile Print Content Mgmt Generalist IV. The first proposed BU (Lancet) cuts across this as it only includes 33 of the 72 PCM Generalist IVs. The remaining 29 would be Generalist IV employees who have the same role profile as colleagues they work in the same location who are included in the BUs. However, they would be outside the proposed BUs which include the colleagues they work in the same location on a day-to-day basis. That is not practical or workable. The second proposed (Cell Press) BU also cuts across this function as it only includes 31 of the 260 London employees in the group. It includes only 10 of the 72 PCM Generalist IVs. Both proposed BUs fail to include colleagues of those in the BUs with the same job or role profile who are part of the same overall business at the same or a different location.鈥�

14)聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Employer said that it could provide multiple examples of this 鈥渋n other job families and locations where some employees would fall within the BUs and others not in the BUs.鈥� The Employer said that it was not compatible with effective management for Elsevier employees (especially those working together in the London Wall Elsevier office) to be split among 鈥渢wo fragmented bargaining units and a cohort excluded from either proposed bargaining unit.鈥� That would result in inequality and unfairness as between Elsevier colleagues who work alongside each other in the same or similar role profiles and yet would have to be treated differently by Elsevier because they are in one or other proposed BU or excluded from both. This is particularly the case as there is mobility within and outside the Print Content Development & Management function of STMJ. Just within the last 5 years there have been 8 employees who have moved to work on Lancet journals and 10 employees moving to work on Cell Press journals. The mobility is also the other direction with 8 Lancet and 5 Cell Press moving elsewhere within the business for development. If there was separate bargaining for those presently assigned to Lancet and/or Cell Press that would depress internal mobility within the employer as the fragmented BUs would be designed to generate differential pay and conditions from the same roles elsewhere in the same office. That would make it harder to move as a change in terms and conditions would be required.

15)聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Employer concluded this point by saying that it considered the proposed bargaining unit would be incompatible with effective management and that it would also be incompatible with the management aim to drive collaboration across the global business. The Employer said 鈥渨e have standard terms and conditions for employees across departments which are agreed at a global level in Elsevier and are standardised by location which is reviewed consistently in Elsevier to ensure we remain competitive to the market. Colleagues in the proposed BUs work alongside colleagues with the same job profiles in other Elsevier journals as well as other business groups; Academic & Government, Health Markets and Corporate Markets which all share a common job architecture which is the foundation for our pay scales and benefits to ensure consistency of treatment across business groups for employees with the same or similar job profiles. Pay is also reviewed outside of the annual process using job architecture to maintain internal equity and recognise performance and development with promotions and role changes.鈥�

16)聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Employer stated that it had 1,781 employees in the UK. The Employer said that it did not agree with the number of workers in the bargaining unit as defined in the Union鈥檚 application, and that this was likely to be due to a 鈥渄efinition error鈥� in the Union鈥檚 proposed bargaining unit. The Employer said that there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit. In answer to the question whether it disagreed with the Union鈥檚 estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer answered, 鈥淓lsevier does not maintain such information but will investigate.鈥�

17)聽聽聽聽聽聽 When asked to give its reasons if it did not consider that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit would be likely to support recognition, the Employer said 鈥渨e believe that employees working on Lancet publications would not support any differentiation or separation from their colleagues working on Cell Press or indeed from other STMJ colleagues. The workers in STMJ value the reward review process, the global job architecture and the drive for equity and fairness of pay and terms. They are unlikely to support any recognition which would undermine these important features of their working life and relationships with colleagues.鈥�

18)聽聽聽聽聽聽 In answer to the question if the application is made by more than one Union and you wish to put forward a case that the Unions will not co-operate with each other, please give reasons and whether it was aware of any previous application under Schedule A1 for statutory recognition made by this Trade Union in respect of this bargaining unit or a similar bargaining unit, the Employer answered 鈥淣/A.鈥�

19)聽聽聽聽聽聽 When asked if it had received any other applications in respect of workers in the proposed bargaining unit the Employer answered, 鈥渙nly the linked application referred to above.鈥� The Employer said that it consented to its contact details being forwarded to Acas.

5. Summary of the Union鈥檚 comments on the Employer鈥檚 response to the application

20)聽聽聽聽聽聽 In a letter dated 25 April 2025 the Union said that it had a very strong membership density in the proposed bargaining unit. The Union said that the proposed bargaining unit of 鈥渁ll staff within The Lancet Group, with the exception of the TLG leadership team and Executive Assistant鈥� was clearly defined and that the Employer could be in no doubt as to those workers included. The Union went on to say that the proposed bargaining unit was compatible with effective management and fully aligned with existing operational structures and reporting lines, and avoided small, fragmented units of workers.

21)聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Union explained that RELX, an information and analytics company, owned Elsevier, an information analytics and publishing company that promoted itself as 鈥渢he world鈥檚 leading scientific publisher鈥�. The Union said that Scientific, Technical and Medical Journals (STMJ) was a division within Elsevier that contained five groups responsible for publishing journals: The Lancet Group and Cell Press as separate groups, alongside three groups responsible for publishing thousands of different journals (鈥淟ife Sciences, Social Sciences and Economics鈥�; 鈥淗ealth and Medical Sciences鈥�; 鈥淧hysical Sciences鈥�). The Union went on to say 鈥渢he operational model of Lancet Group and Cell Press journals is fundamentally different to that of other STMJ journals. The key distinction is that The Lancet Group and Cell Press are operated as strong, globally recognised brands by in-house teams who work solely on that material. For example, editors are in-house and have full editorial control. By contrast, Elsevier staff working on other STMJ journals typically oversee external academics who have editorial control of their journals and run them part-time (either voluntarily or for a small stipend) - these Elsevier staff will often be responsible for managing a broad portfolio of journals related by topic (eg, cardiology), rather than by brand.鈥�^{[footnote 3]}

22)聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Union said that the operational structure of The Lancet Group was well-suited to function as an effective bargaining unit. It said that the Lancet Group comprised of distinct internal teams with varying but complementary functions, and all staff worked solely and collaboratively on The Lancet Group material and initiatives only: 鈥渋n-house editors staffing all 26 journals, who are responsible for assessing and handling scientific papers, and editorial decision-making for those journals; a central Assistant Editor unit that handles the line editing and copyediting of scientific papers; a dedicated Journal Office for administrative support; Production teams that turn the scientific manuscripts into high-quality print and digital products; and specific Marketing and Communications teams supporting The Lancet Group only. These teams, all ultimately reporting to the Senior Vice President for The Lancet Group (Richard Horton), form a single cohesive operational entity.鈥� The Union said that the day-to-day work and interactions of staff in The Lancet Group 鈥渁re centred almost exclusively within this group, and on its specific portfolio of journals and materials. There is no routine operational interaction between staff inside The Lancet Group and staff outside of The Lancet Group: that is, with staff assigned to other STMJ journal families or Cell Press journals, and no management crossover. Moving into another position outside of The Lancet Group would normally require a substantial change of job description, line management, and contract (regardless of whether collective bargaining agreements were established).鈥�

23)聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Union said that 鈥淛ob Families and Profiles鈥� were not relevant when defining the bargaining unit. the Union said 鈥渢he Job Families and Job Profiles referenced in the Employer鈥檚 response are extremely broad, non-specific entities set at the RELX (Elsevier鈥檚 owner) level and have no purpose in day-to-day operations. Staff within a given 鈥楯ob Family鈥� or 鈥楯ob Profile鈥� do not operate as a single unit; they do not necessarily work on common projects, share any lines of management, interact, or even know which other staff are in that 鈥楩amily鈥�. Instead, every staff member is assigned a 鈥楤usiness Title,鈥� such as Senior Editor, which serves as the official job title for hiring, daily operations, and reflects actual responsibilities. As the operational model of the other STMJ journals relies heavily on managing editor and publisher roles that oversee external editors, we believe that the non-Lancet, non-Cell Press staff referenced by the Employer鈥檚 Response are staff in these roles.鈥�

24)聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Union concluded by saying that it believed that the bargaining unit should reflect operational realities and reporting lines, and that the proposed bargaining unit did this by encompassing all The Lancet Group staff (excluding the Lancet Group leadership team and Executive Assistant). The Union said that 鈥渋f any staff at the London Wall location are excluded from the proposed bargaining unit, this is because they are not part of The Lancet Group, do not work on The Lancet Group material, and do not routinely interact with The Lancet Group staff in an operational capacity.鈥�

6. The membership and support check

25)聽聽聽聽聽聽 To assist in the determination of two of the admissibility criteria specified in the Schedule, namely, whether 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit are members of the union (paragraph 36(1)(a)) and whether 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 (paragraph 36(1)(b)), the Panel proposed an independent check of the level of union membership within the proposed bargaining. 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 proposed 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 parties that, to preserve confidentiality, the respective lists would not be copied to the other party. These arrangements were confirmed in a letter dated 28 April 2025 from the Case Manager to both parties.

26)聽聽聽聽聽聽 The information requested was received from the Union on 2 May 2025 and from the Employer on 30 April 2025. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.聽聽聽

27)聽聽聽聽聽聽 The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 191 workers in the Union鈥檚 proposed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 106 names. According to the Case Manager鈥檚 report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 106 a membership level of 55.50%.

28)聽聽聽聽聽聽 A report of the result of the membership and support check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 6 May 2025 and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by noon on 9 May 2025.

7. Summary of the Employer鈥檚 comments following the membership and support check

29)聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Employer said that it doubted that the majority of workers in the proposed bargaining unit would support 鈥淣UJ recognition for collective bargaining purposes.鈥� The Employer continued by saying 鈥渕any employees are probably aware that given we currently operate on a performance-based pay system, collective bargaining for pay will no doubt result in depressed pay for some employees.聽 The employer has not gathered evidence of this at this point.聽 However, the employer considers that employees must be aware that high performing employees who are currently eligible to receive higher pay on performance related pay structures are likely to be disadvantaged under the pay structures that would be reached by NUJ collective bargaining. Flat rate annual increases are likely to only benefit a relatively small number of lower performers and have the potential to have an adverse effect on the majority who are average and higher performers. This is something that we believe will be known to some of the workers in the proposed bargaining units.聽Collective bargaining for pay is therefore likely to be perceived as having a potentially detrimental effect on many people鈥檚 pay leading to inequality and inequity amongst employees within the STMJ group because the rest of the STMJ group would remain on existing performance related pay structures. For this reason, we do not believe that a majority of employees (who are the ones who are performing well or above) would support collective bargaining.鈥�

30)聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Employer said that the Union had ran 鈥渁 very prominent recruitment campaign within the proposed bargaining unit鈥� which the Employer said emphasised the benefits of union membership and offered attractive discounted subscription rates. The Employer said 鈥渋t is likely that many NUJ members are recent recruits and have been attracted by these benefits.聽 They are not likely to support collective bargaining for NUJ (even as new NUJ members) when the consequences for their performance related pay becomes clear to them.聽 For these reasons recognition is likely to have minority support even within the NUJ membership because it will become clear very quickly that the NUJ鈥檚 pay strategy does not tend to benefit them as individuals within a high performing work environment of Elsevier.鈥�

8. Summary of the Union鈥檚 comments following the membership and support check

31)聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Union said that it accepted the contents of the report and did not have any further comments to make.

9. Considerations

32)聽聽聽聽聽聽 In determining whether to accept the application the Panel must decide whether the admissibility and validity provisions referred to in paragraph 4 above are satisfied.聽 The Panel has considered carefully the submissions of both parties and all the evidence in reaching its decision.聽

33)聽聽聽聽聽聽 The Panel is satisfied that the Union made a valid request to the Employer within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9 of the Schedule and that its application was made in accordance with paragraph 11. Furthermore, the Panel is satisfied that the application is not rendered inadmissible by any of the provisions in paragraphs 33 to 35 and paragraphs 37 to 42 of the Schedule. The remaining issues for the Panel to decide are whether the admissibility criteria contained in paragraphs 36(1)(a) and paragraph 36(1)(b) are met.

Paragraph 36(1)(a)

34)聽聽聽聽聽聽 Under paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule an application is not admissible unless the Panel decides that members of the union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit.聽 References to the bargaining unit are to the bargaining unit proposed by the Union.聽 This is the unit against which the admissibility and validity tests are applied.聽 In their respective responses detailed above the parties have provided a lot of detail on the arguments surrounding the proposed bargaining unit. Whether or not the bargaining unit is appropriate is not an issue and will not be unless the application is accepted by the CAC.

35)聽聽聽聽聽聽 The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 24 to 27 above) showed that 55.50% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 25 above, the Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

36)聽聽聽聽聽聽 For the reasons set out in paragraph 34 above the Panel has decided that members of the union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit as required by paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule.

Paragraph 36(1)(b)

37)聽聽聽聽聽聽 Under paragraph 36(1) of the Schedule, an application is not admissible unless the Panel decides that a majority of the workers constituting 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. The Panel notes the submissions of the Employer at paragraphs 29 and 30 above, however in the absence of evidence to the contrary, union membership provides a legitimate indicator of the views of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit as to whether they would be likely to favour recognition of the Union.

38)聽聽聽 On the basis of the evidence before it, the Panel has decided 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 36(1)(b) of the Schedule.

10. Decision

39)聽聽聽聽聽聽 For the reasons given in paragraphs 31-37 above, the Panel鈥檚 decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Mrs Lisa Gettins, Panel Chair

Mr Mustafa Faruqi

Ms Joanne Kaye

19 May 2025

---