UK bargaining unit scope negotiation goes to arbitration

WWU-UK Branch

Late on 15 October, an email was sent to all UK-based Wikimedia Foundation staff from Safeguard UK (SG), the employer of record, entitled “Update on trade union recognition discussions”. We are disappointed by this communication, which presents an incomplete and misleading account of the discussions and the reasons our recognition process has moved to the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC). We want to clarify what has happened, why we have sought a formal determination, and what comes next. We have included a timeline of communications between Safeguard Global and UTAW-CWU at the end of this message.

Status of the recognition process

As SG accurately notes, the CAC has scheduled a hearing for 29 October, with a determination on the scope of the bargaining unit expected by 20 November. Importantly, this hearing is not about whether UK workers should have a union, but rather concerns who will be included in the bargaining unit. This hearing refers to the “establishing a bargaining unit” stage of the documentation on the gov.uk site.

From the outset, UTAW-CWU and the WWU-UK Branch have sought recognition covering all UK-based Wikimedia Foundation staff. Safeguard, however, is seeking to exclude certain categories of our colleagues, including management-level staff, legal counsel, and HR associates, on the grounds of possible conflicts of interest in collective bargaining. We disagree with this proposed exclusion and argue that the proposed bargaining unit is compatible with effective management, avoids fragmenting the workforce into small bargaining units, and accounts both for the shared employment characteristics of staff in the unit, and location, in the UK. The point-by-point reasoning has been described in our prior public report. The deadline for submission of written arguments and evidence for this hearing was 19 October.

As people who will benefit from and be subject to the same bargained workplace conditions and benefits, we believe managers have an equal right to participate in their creation. If you are one of the few UK-based WMF staff not already a member of UTAW, especially if you are one of the aforementioned categories that SG wishes to exclude from scope, please know that we are working to ensure your employment rights.

Misrepresentation

Safeguard’s email states that “CWU have indicated that they would prefer to discontinue the voluntary discussions process” and proceed before the CAC. This is an incomplete and misleading account.

In early July, SG chose to enter negotiations rather than voluntarily recognise our proposed bargaining unit. We accepted that decision in good faith and participated fully in the process. Since then, SG has requested only two negotiation meetings, both focused on narrowing the scope of the bargaining unit. Throughout these conversations, our organising committee and UTAW-CWU representatives have provided detailed explanations, relevant legal precedents, and information about the Wikimedia Foundation’s organisational structure to explain why we believe the proposed exclusions are unnecessary. Despite these efforts, SG maintains its position of excluding categories of staff from scope. To suggest that our union simply preferred to discontinue discussions misrepresents a decision made collectively by workers involved and our union representatives.

We have not withdrawn from constructive engagement. We have pursued the established statutory process because voluntary discussions have not resolved the central disagreement. The CAC provides an independent mechanism to determine the bargaining unit when the parties cannot agree. Seeking that determination is a legitimate and established part of the UK union recognition process.

The WWU UK Branch recognition process was launched in July—before the WWU-US Branch process which has now concluded with an overwhelmingly positive ballot—and yet the UK process remains in the same place. We remain committed to constructive engagement, but constructive engagement must lead to progress. Moving to the CAC is a necessary step towards resolving the outstanding disagreement and advancing recognition without further stalling and delay.

Join us

We are working hard to ensure the maximum scope of union recognition for our colleagues. Our priority remains ensuring that as many UK-based colleagues as possible can benefit from collective representation.

WMF HR leadership has confirmed that all UK-based staff, including managers, may join discussions about their potential union representation. We want every colleague to understand the process, have access to accurate information, and have an opportunity to participate.

###

Timeline of UK voluntary recognition negotiations so far

  • 24 June: UTAW-CWU submitted the request for voluntary recognition of the WWU-UK Branch with a proposed bargaining unit of “all staff in the UK employed by SafeGuard as Employer of Record for and on behalf of Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.”.
  • 7 July: SG responded, requesting to negotiate rather than to accept voluntary recognition, which was accepted on the same day. This started a 20 working day (minimum) clock.
  • 31 July: The first negotiation meeting was held, attended by SG, UTAW-CWU, several UK Wikimedia Foundation staff, and mediated by a representative of Acas. No substantive points for negotiation were raised by SG during the meeting. It was noted that the request for statutory recognition (via the CAC) would be submitted after the 20 days, and that this process can, does, and should run parallel to voluntary recognition negotiations.
  • 6 August: The statutory recognition paperwork was submitted for a potential ruling by CAC if needed.
  • 18 August: A senior SG manager counter-proposed the bargaining unit scope: that we exclude all managers, legal counsel, and HR associates on the basis that these would create a conflict of interest in collective bargaining.
  • Same day: We responded that this is factually incorrect, as this is not how the Wikimedia Foundation’s employment conditions are determined. We also consulted with WMF members, and they were against excluding the roles.
  • 20 August: CAC confirms that the proposed bargaining unit has passed the membership density check, by cross-referencing employee and membership records provided by SG and UTAW respectively.
  • 3 September: The second Acas-mediated negotiation was held, again including members from the UK WMF staff. SG reiterated its position to remove managers (etc.) from the bargaining unit scope. At length, UTAW representatives described the UK legal context, UK WMF staff described the practical context for the organisation, explaining why this would not represent a conflict of interest.
  • 11 September: SG did not meet timelines and next steps agreed in a meeting for an updated bargaining unit counter-claim, so we emailed to ask if they’re withdrawing from voluntary negotiations. A senior SG manager replied to say they have not withdrawn, and argued that we are refusing to discuss their point about a conflict of interest.
  • Same day: We replied that we had a lengthy discussion in the meeting about this issue, and gave further evidence as to why there would be no conflict of interest. We noted that we’re willing to come to a third negotiation meeting if they wish to have one, but that it should be about something different, as re-litigating the same conversation would not be good-faith negotiation but rather merely an attempt to delay.
  • 16 September: The senior SG manager sends a longer email repeating the same, but asserting they want to continue in good faith.
  • 17 September: We emailed SG to confirm that we would like CAC to rule on the bargaining unit scope.
  • 15 October: SG sends email to all UK WMF staff claiming that “CWU have indicated that they would prefer to discontinue the voluntary discussions process”.
  • 19 October: Submission of evidence and written arguments to CAC.