Significant changes to terms and conditions 



The duty to consult collectively is triggered by any “dismissal for a reason not related to the individual concerned” (section 195, TULRCA). This is much wider than the definition that is used to claim unfair dismissal and a redundancy payment, set out at the start of this chapter. In GMB v Man Truck and Bus UK [2000] IRLR 636, the EAT confirmed that the dismissal of employees and their re-engagement on new terms and conditions triggers collective redundancy consultation obligations, even if there is no proposed reduction in the number of employees.



In Pujante Rivera v Gestora Clubs Dir [2016] IRLR 51, the ECJ ruled that a resignation in response to a unilateral pay cut or other unilateral material change to contract terms (i.e. a constructive dismissal) is a dismissal for the purposes of the Collective Redundancies Directive, as long as the contract change was for a reason unrelated to the individual worker, such as to cut costs. All such resignations must be included when calculating whether the 20 worker threshold has been met. The definition of “redundancy” under the Directive must not be interpreted narrowly, said the ECJ.