![[Basket]](images/basket.png){kind=small}
Your order![[cover image]](images/issue/BK201305.jpg)
When must the information be provided to reps?
This information must be provided long enough before the transfer to allow effective consultation to take place. If employers choose to engage in voluntary consultation, this must meet the same standard as obligatory consultation. Otherwise the employer will risk a protective award. This was established in the following case:
Information was given to the union on 15 August, two days before the factory began its annual shutdown until 31 August. The transfer took place on 3 September 2007. No measures were envisaged, so no statutory obligation to consult was triggered. The EAT concluded that the holiday shutdown made it impossible for reps to use the information, either in discussions with management or with their own members. As a result, the information had not been provided long enough before the transfer date to enable meaningful consultation to take place. It made no difference to this conclusion that the employer was not obliged to consult with employees.
Cable Realisations Ltd v GMB Northern [2010] IRLR 42
Is there a minimum number of affected employees which triggers the duty to consult?
No. Unlike in a collective redundancy consultation, there is no minimum number of affected employees. There is a duty to inform (and consult if measures are envisaged) even if just one employee transfers.
Is there a minimum or fixed timescale for consultation?
No. Under the TUPE regulations, the employer must consider any representations and reply, with reasons for objection where appropriate. There is no specified minimum time period over which consultation must take place. However, consultation must be meaningful, and the collective redundancy cases about meaningful consultation and liability for a protective award apply equally here (see Chapter 11: Redundancy).
There is no obligation to consult under TUPE if a transfer is planned but then later abandoned (ILAB Facilities Limited v Metcalfe [2013] UKEAT/0224/12/RN).