From 6 April 2005, employers with more than 150 employees will be bound by the terms of the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2005 ("ICE Regulations"). Employers with more than 100 employees will be bound by the terms of the Regulations from April 2007, those with more than 50 from April 2008, and there will be no application to employers with fewer than 50 employees. The legislation allows implementation by the UK of the Information and Consultation Directive 2002.
It is hoped that through the information and consultation process, the Regulations will encourage a more flexible working environment, and promote mutual trust between employer and employee, meaning that employees appreciate and respond more effectively to their organisation’s changing needs. This may be achieved because of the fact that employees will hopefully be better able to understand the challenges which their employer faces. Employees will also have a better understanding of why and how particular business decisions are reached, which should result in a working environment of increased mutual trust and co-operation.
The Regulations apply to "undertakings", defined as "a public or a private undertaking carrying out an economic activity whether or not operating for gain". This definition means that an undertaking can include schools, colleges and charities, if those institutions carry out an economic activity as defined above. Ultimately, it will be for the tribunals to decide what the definition of undertaking actually includes.
The number of employees within an undertaking will be calculated according to the average number of employees in the undertaking during the previous 12 months.
There will be no automatic obligation for employers to commence consultation with employees. However, employers can commence negotiation of an information and consultation agreement on their own initiative or it can be triggered by a request from their employees.
This compulsory consultation process will be triggered should 10% of the workforce make a request, known as an "employee request". Employers should be aware that it will be possible for such an employee request to be comprised of a number of separate requests made within a rolling six month period, the total of which amounts to at least 10% of the workforce.
The actual process that an employer will be required to follow will be dependent upon whether or not there is a pre-existing information and consultation agreement. If there is a pre-existing agreement in place, and a valid employee request is received, then the employer can opt to hold a ballot to determine whether the workforce endorses this employee request. If such a ballot is held and 40% of the entire workforce and a majority of those voting endorse the employee request, the employer will be required to enter into negotiations for a new information and consultation agreement. However, where less than 40% of the workforce or less than a majority of those voting endorse the request, there will be no obligation to negotiate a new agreement and the employer can instead maintain the arrangements of the existing information and consultation agreement.
If an employer receives a valid employee request, has a pre-existing agreement in place, and fails to hold a ballot, the employer will then be obliged to enter into negotiations for a new agreement.
From the date of the employee request, the employer will have three months to initiate negotiations and, during that time, the employer should appoint employee-negotiating representatives. Once those negotiating representatives have been appointed, the employer will have up to six months to negotiate the information and consultation agreement and this six month period will be extendable by agreement between the parties.
The terms of the negotiated agreement must be in writing and dated, cover all of the employees in the workplace, set out the circumstances in which the employees will be informed and consulted, be signed by or on behalf of the employer, be approved by the employees and provide consultation and information with the information and consultation representatives or directly with the employees or with both.
One of the advantages for the employer if the employer reaches agreement with the employees is that both employer and employees can agree the content of the information and consultation agreement. They will not then be required to include the information that must be provided under the statutory default procedure. That procedure will apply where an agreement has not been reached. In that situation, the employer will be obliged to establish an elected committee of representatives. The statutory default procedure means that employers will have a duty to inform relative to the business's economic situation, they will have a duty to inform and consult relative to employment prospects and a duty to inform and consult with a view to reaching agreement on decisions likely to lead to substantial changes in the work organisation or contractual relations, including redundancies and transfer situations. The definition of contractual relations in this situation includes, for example, changes to the disciplinary and grievance procedure, changes to the compulsory retirement age or changes to terms and conditions.
Employers concerned at releasing confidential information should be aware that information may be withheld on the grounds of confidentiality in certain circumstances. It is advisable for the employee representatives to be asked to enter into a confidentiality agreement linked to the undertaking’s disciplinary procedure. That confidentiality agreement should also provide for recovery of loss from the individual as a result of any breach of confidentiality by the representative.
It is important that employers are aware that if they refuse to impart information on the grounds of confidentiality, the employees will have the right to complain to the Central Arbitration Committee, which can order disclosure of that information. An employee can also complain relative to defective ballot arrangements and the Central Arbitration Committee can make a finding in respect of this.
A complaint to the Central Arbitration Committee for failure to comply with the terms of the Regulations may also result in an order being issued by the Committee for specific performance or a financial penalty up to £75,000. They will take into account factors such as the gravity of the employer’s failure, the reason for the failure and the number of employees affected by it. The employer will have the right to appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal against such an order.
The protection afforded to employee representatives by the ICE Regulations means that it will be automatically unfair to dismiss an employee or subject them to any detriment as a result of performing a function in their role as a representative or candidate for election as a representative. Representatives will also have the right to reasonable paid time off from normal duties to undertake their representative roles.
Given the penalties for failure to comply with the terms of the Regulations, employers are advised to familiarise themselves with the terms of the legislation to ensure that they comply with them.
It is also worth noting that in many respects, the Regulations may well be of assistance to the employer. They should be viewed as a means by which employers can more effectively communicate with their employees and have an opportunity that they would not ordinarily have to obtain constructive feedback from them. They provide potentially for increased stability, in that employees will have a much better understanding of the reasons for business decisions being taken and therefore have a much more transparent and secure environment in which to work.
Saria Akhter is an assistant with Harper Macleod LLP, Glasgow
Current Submissions04.07.08 Getting a Get in Scotland - 2This follow-up to the article published in March 2006 explains how current Scots divorce law affects Jewish clients and how solicitors can give appropriate advice 12.06.08 No place for secrecyFuller version of the Opinion article, Journal, June 2008: critique of the system for appointment as Queen’s Counsel in Scotland 11.03.08 One Scotland, many cultures?Despite the protections of the Human Rights Act, the position of travelling people in Scotland appears to have worsened in recent years - why? 26.02.08 Bank charges and the Unfair Terms RegulationsThe significance of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations in the context of the current litigation over bank charges 21.02.08 CGT: Don't lose out on 6 April 2008Couples should consider asset transfers before then to preserve indexation relief 14.12.07 Common sense prevailsThe options open, and the issues that arise, now that the proposed planning gain supplement is not to be introduced 07.12.07 Discounting justiceAuthor contends that sentencing discounts and other developments have created an imbalance in the justice system 10.10.07 Advocacy in mediationAn overview of the mediation process and the opportunities for solicitors and clients 06.09.07 TUPE: stay your handA Court of Session ruling on a law firm redundancy marks a fundamental change in TUPE 24.07.07 EAT breaks ground with TUPE insolvency rulingRuling on when insolvency proceedings begin leaves successor employer liable 06.07.07 Confidentiality clauses - beware!The Information Commissioner's decision in the VisitScotland case requires very careful drafting of confidentiality provisions in public sector contracts if they are to work 06.07.07 The power of marks: Frankie goes after Hollys nameHow failure to address issues of ownership of the band's name stored up trouble for Frankie Goes to Hollywood 14.05.07 Court plans with little appealThe fuller version of the Opinion article in the Journal for May 2007 14.05.07 Winning waysThe fuller version of the article in the Journal for May 2007 08.02.07 Routes to qualification: the Italian pictureAn Italian lawyer with an interest in training in different jurisdictions reports on current developments in the Italian legal system 09.01.07 Contractual handcuffs: enhanced redundancy rightsThe Court of Appeal decision in Keeley v FOSROC International Ltd requires employers to exercise caution when referring to redundancy rights in staff handbooks 27.12.06 The Isle of ManAn summary of the current legal and tax regime for individuals and companies based on the island (a longer version of the briefing in the November 2006 issue) 15.11.06 Costume Wars: copyright storm over the troopersA row over "Star Wars" costumes illustrates the need to protect all intellectual property rights in written agreements 13.10.06 Survival of the fittest? A replyReply to article on selection for Diploma and traineeship places by Michael Torrance in the September 2006 Journal 13.10.06 TUPE passes the buckFar from providing clarity, the new regulations will need litigation to decide the effect of the insolvency provisions (longer version of October 2006 briefing article) 17.08.06 For supplement read tax - an updateAuthors update their previous Journal article on the proposed planning gain supplement 17.08.06 Technology and the Scottish courtsAn update on the use of technology in the Scottish courts, based on the author's experience of a recent patent case 26.07.06 A lack of trustForthcoming in August issue, put online because of its urgency, the article outlines the final form of the trust tax changes in this year's Finance Act 17.07.06 Ireland 4, Italy 0The ECJ decision in the Irish-Italian dispute in the Parmalat companies liquidation proceedings provides important guidance on jurisdiction 05.04.06 Legal science or law-lite? A responseThis reply to Professor Gretton argues that changes in Scots law teaching are a necessary response to changes in universities, the wider community and the law itself 03.04.06 Opening a binding global route for personal dataIn a significant move the Information Commissioner has allowed a company to transfer employees' personal data outwith the EU under binding internal rules 02.04.06 Mentally disordered offendersOverview of the options available to the courts when dealing with offenders who have or may have a mental disorder, following recent legislative reforms 30.03.06 Bias and mental health tribunals: a replyReply to criticisms of the new tribunals, arguing that the composition of the tribunals is not inherently unfair and only research can assess their performance 17.01.06 Legal aid in children's hearing referralsThis paper delivered at the legal aid conference, argues that the interests of justice require better remuneration for solicitors appearing in children's hearing cases 09.12.05 Holes in Scotland's corporate killing proposalsGaps in the expert working group's proposals could make them unworkable and bad for business 10.08.05 Prosecuting bigotry offencesTwo appeal decisions have exposed limitations in the statutory offences directed at racial abuse 08.07.05 Commissioner: Public Authorities must do moreInformation Commissioner's first appeal decision highlights areas for improvement 14.04.05 New identity for criminal justice bodyScottish Association for the Study of Offending launches by removing "Delinquency" from title 14.04.05 Information and Consultation RegulationsBriefing on the regulations in force from 6 April 2005, covering businesses with more than the prescribed number of employees 13.04.05 Retailers seek effective court action on crimeScottish Retail Consortium proposes more effective intervention following 3rd Retail Crime Survey 11.04.05 Appropriate dispute resolutionThis paper, given to the Four Jurisdictions Conference in Nice this year, discusses how family law can make a difference for the better by careful choice of the most suitable method of resolution 09.03.05 ASBOs and young peopleWhat to look for when acting for a young person facing an antisocial behaviour order application 21.02.05 Sell or transfer?Longer version of briefing published in February 2005 issue, page 44 08.02.05 Promoting competitiveness or competition?Discussion of EU rules on state aids with particular reference to Highlands and Islands ferries 10.11.04 Guarding the inner sanctumHow to minimise the risk of breaches of internet security 10.11.04 The Clinical Trials Directive - a summaryWhat the EU Clinical Trials Directive means for trials of medicinal products 13.10.04 Sheriff Court Rules Council consultation paperConsultation on proposals for further extension of the use of information technology in civil cases in the sheriff court (response date: 15 November 2004) 13.10.04 Ignorantia juris: it's all Greek to meSecond annual APEX lecture given by the President of the Law Society of Scotland, on the rule of law and its essential components 13.10.04 Virtual firms: transactional learning on the webHow today's Diploma students are introduced to legal transactions in a virtual environment 13.10.04 Drafting consumer contractsGuidance on drafting consumer contracts and ensuring compliance with the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 |