The TUC has responded angrily to CBI proposals to reduce to 30 days the minimum 90-day period for consulting unions or workplace representatives if 100 or more redundancies are planned.
The CBI claims the present timescale is “simply too long”, making it harder for companies to restore their business to health and prolonging uncertainty for workers.
In contrast, the TUC say the 90-day period ensures sufficient time to explore alternatives to redundancy, such as obtaining new orders or making efficiency savings.
According to TUC general secretary Brendan Barber the current consultation period enables both unions and employers to “decrease the number of job losses, avoid compulsory redundancies and ensure the redundancy process is fair.”
It also allows companies the opportunity to “retain skilled staff and maintain morale amongst remaining staff”, he added.
John Longworth, Director General of the British Chambers of Commerce, disagreed:
“The UK’s collective redundancy rules are archaic and damaging to UK firms,” he complained. “Businesses need confidence that when redundancies are necessary to save the business, and hundreds of other jobs, they can be conducted in a swift and fair manner, rather than stringing out the process to hit an arbitrary 90 day time period.
“A 90 day consultation period may have been necessary when correspondence was conducted via post,” he conceded, “but modern technology has rendered such long periods obsolete.
“Of course firms considering large scale redundancies should consult their staff, but effective consultations can be undertaken in a much shorter time period. Any firm wishing to take longer to consult than the statutory minimum would still be free to do so, as they are now.”
Business secretary Vince Cable has issued a “call for evidence” on collective redundancy rules as part of his review of workplace law.
