The company appealed against the upholding of the union’s claim that the company was in breach of the regulations. The company was to close its factory and decided at first to begin consultations for redundancy, but then looked for a buyer for the business. The union complained that inadequate information had been provided to allow consultation on a transfer. The company replied that IPCS was decided incorrectly in that the requirement to make disclosures applied only to the situation where consultation was obligatory, and not where as here, consultation was voluntary.
Held: The submission was ill founded: ‘Mr Hyams contends that the purpose behind the requirement to provide information under Regulation 13(2) is to put at rest the minds of affected employees as far as possible at a time of impending changes. We think that it goes further than that; it is designed to allow the representatives of those employees to engage in a consultation process with the employer on an informed basis. Whether the employer is obliged to engage in such a consultation exercise is dependent on Regulation 13(6).’
A responsible employer will not necessarily limit consultation to the measures being taken. The court should be slow to disturb a well settled interpretation of the law.
Peter Clark J
[2009] UKEAT 0538 – 08 – 2910, [2010] IRLR 42
Bailii
Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Institute of Professional Civil Servants (IPCS) v Secretary of State for Defence ChD 1987
The legislative purpose of the provision of information as to a proposed transfer of an undertaking is to facilitate proper and effective consultation, though the transferor need only inform of those measures which he actually envisages will be . .
Cited – Kumchyk v Derby County Council EAT 1978
The appellant sought to advance an argument that a certain term was implied into the contract of employment which, for its consideration, would have required consideration of a factual framework which had not been explored in evidence.
Held: . .
Cited – Glennie v Independent Magazines (UK) Limited CA 17-Jun-1999
A party is under a duty to present his entire case at the first hearing in the Employment Tribunal. Where a claimant’s representative had decided to adopt a particular position in law when making representations to the original industrial tribunal, . .
Cited – Susie Radin Ltd v GMB and others CA 20-Feb-2004
The company made redundancies but failed to carry out any effective or honest consultation. The tribunal awarded the maximum 90 days protective order. The company appealed saying that it had given the employees greater notice than was strictly due. . .
Cited – Jones v Governing Body of Burdett Coutts School CA 2-Apr-1998
The Employment Appeal Tribunal must give reasons for its decision, if it chooses to allow the amendment of appeal the papers in order to hear a point of law which had been conceded in the industrial tribunal. Citing Liverpool Corporation v Wilson, . .
Cited – Regina v Gwent County Council ex parte Bryant 1988
The court described what was meant by consultation: ‘Fair consultation means: (a) consultation when the proposals are still at a formative stage; (b) adequate information on which to respond; (c) adequate time in which to respond; (d) conscientious . .
Cited – Regina v British Coal Corporation, Ex Parte Price and Others QBD 28-May-1993
British Coal had the power to close coal mines once the unions had been consulted. The court gave guidance on the extent of consultation necessary.
Held: Fair consultation will involve consultation while consultations are at a formative stage; . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.380266