Significant changes to terms and conditions 


The duty to consult collectively under TULRCA is triggered by any “dismissal for a reason not related to the individual concerned” (section 195, TULRCA). This is a much wider definition than the one 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, a referral by the Spanish courts, the ECJ has ruled that a resignation in response to a unilateral pay cut for economic reasons (a constructive dismissal) is a redundancy for the purposes of the collective consultation obligations under the Collective Redundancies Directive and must be included when calculating the number of employees for the purposes of collective consultation.. The definition of redundancy under the Directive must not be interpreted narrowly, ruled the ECJ. “The fact that an employer - unilaterally and to the detriment of the employee - makes significant changes to essential elements of [the] employment contract for reasons not related to the individual employee concerned falls within the definition of “redundancy” for the purpose of the Directive.”