· News

Collective redundancy consultation cut: good for both employer and employee?

Employment relations minister Jo Swinson has announced that the collective redundancy consultation period, in situations where 100 or more employees are involved, is to be cut from 90 days to 45 days.

We asked two HR directors: Will this be, as the Government says, good for both employee and employer? Or, as the trade unions say, will the measure ultimately make it easier for companies to sack employees, and do nothing to help create employment?

Today, Helen Giles, HR director at homeless support charity Broadway, gives her thoughts.

"I agree with the minister that the reform will strike an appropriate balance between employer and employee interests.

"The world has shifted dramatically since the 90-day consultation period was enshrined in the Trade Unions and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act (1992). The economic context is far more complex and volatile. To survive and prosper, organisations have to be able to adapt quickly when adverse economic conditions hit. At the same time, the variety and speed of communication methods available to engage all stakeholders have made it possible to conclude meaningful consultation in a much shorter time frame.

"The TUC objects to the reform, saying it will make it easier to sack staff. This shows little appreciation of the fact that employers don't make redundancies for the sake of it but because they have to re-shape to fend off economic disaster. The longer it takes to execute the needed changes, the bigger the negative financial impact on the organisation as a whole, including those employees who remain.

"The TUC says the proposal will not save a single job. Here is an example of how it would. Let's take a social care provider that wins a large contract from a local authority to provide statutory services to vulnerable people. Under TUPE regulations they have to take all the 300 previous staff.

"The necessary redundancy money could not be factored into the bid to the local authority or the provider would not have been able to put in a competitive enough bid to win the contract.

"It has to come from somewhere; that means either pay and terms reductions for the whole of the transferee organisation's workforce, or the loss of further jobs. In this scenario, reducing the consultation period to 45 days would save several jobs.

"We cannot hope to restore the UK economy and maximise employment opportunities unless we are prepared to address aspects of employment protection which, while laudable in their time, have become unworkable."