CAC receives first cases under consultation Regulations

The Central Arbitration Committee has published details of three complaints under the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations that it received in August-October 2005. These are the first disputes over the application of the Regulations to be dealt with by the CAC since the legislation came into effect in April 2005.

The Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) is responsible for adjudicating in a wide range of potential disputes under the Information and Consultation of Employees (ICE) Regulations, which took effect in relation to undertakings with 150 or more employees in April 2005 (UK0502103N). The first cases under the Regulations are now beginning to emerge. The CAC’s website carries a livelisting of applications and decisions made . This currently lists three complaints under the ICE Regulations that it received in the period from August to October 2005.

The first two cases listed both originate from the graphical and printing sector. At reprographics company Watt Gilchrist (case I&C/01/05), the case is listed as concerning Regulation 10(1) under which an employee may dispute whether a claimed pre-exiting agreement satisfies the necessary conditions specified by the Regulations. Where an employee request for negotiations to establish information and consultation arrangements is made by fewer than 40% of employees, employers may hold a ballot to endorse the employee request if there is a 'pre-existing agreement' in place. To be valid, a pre-existing agreement must: be in writing; cover all employees; have been approved by the employees; and set out how the employer is to give information to employees or representatives and seek their views. If the CAC decides that there is no pre-existing agreement, it can make an order requiring the employer to initiate negotiations as requested.

At Macmillan Publishers Ltd (I&C/02/05), the union Amicus complained to the CAC under Regulation 6(1), alleging that the company had failed to respond adequately to Amicus’s request for information about the number of employees employed. In such cases, the CAC can make an order specifying that the relevant data be disclosed.

The Amicus complaint is part of a wider campaign for the establishment of information and consultation arrangements at the company. According to the union, Macmillan tried to set up arrangements to inform and consult staff 'which were well below the minimum requirements recommended by Amicus'. In response, the union submitted an employee request for negotiations under the Regulations’ procedures. Although this was not signed by 10% of the workforce, the union served notice that it intended to build up the necessary support via a petition and sought information from the company on employee numbers so as to enable Amicus to determine what number of employees would constitute the 10% threshold. The company subsequently informed the union of the total number of staff that it employs in the UK (1,350), but the union’s complaint to the CAC sought further information about which establishments form part of the undertaking for the purposes of the Regulations and the numbers of employees employed in each case. Amicus has set up website to help secure the necessary support for a valid request for negotiations by at least 10% of the Macmillan workforce.

The third CAC case (I&C/03/05), concerning Moray Council in Scotland, is also reported to focus on Regulation 10(1) and whether a claimed pre-exiting agreement satisfies the Regulations. In this case, a CAC hearing was scheduled to take place in late November.

This information is made available through the European Industrial Relations Observatory (EIRO), as a service to users of the EIROnline database. EIRO is a project of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. However, this information has been neither edited nor approved by the Foundation, which means that it is not responsible for its content and accuracy. This is the responsibility of the EIRO national centre that originated/provided the information. For details see the "About this record" information in this record.