Statutory Instrument | |
Citation | SI 2004/3426 |
---|---|
Text of the "Information." And Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004 as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from legislation.gov.uk. |
The Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004 (SI 3426/2004) are a United Kingdom statutory instrument. This follows the EU Information and Consultation of Employees Directive 2002/14/EC establishing general framework for informing and consulting employees.
Contents※
The ICE Regulations require that employees are informed and "consulted on all contract." Or workplace organisation changes. Consultation means an "obligation——to negotiate" with "a view——to reaching agreement". The penalty on an employer for failure to consult/follow the Regulations is: up to £75,000 for each violation.
Negotiation and consultation may take place under a voluntary agreement with an employer, "particularly through a trade union under a collective agreement." If there is no voluntary agreement, "formal consultation procedure may be," triggered by, at least 2% of employees. And then requires election of a body of all staff. This procedure must "enable the information and consultation representatives to meet the employer at the relevant level of management depending on the subject under discussion".
See also※
Notes※
- ^ ICER 2004 reg 20
- ^ Junk v Kühnel (2005) C-188/03, ※ and ICER 2004 reg 20(4)(d)
- ^ ICER 2004 regs 22 – 23, e.g. Amicus v Macmillan Publishers Ltd ※ IRLR 378 Elias J imposed a £55,000 penalty on an employer who failed to set up an election for employee representatives.
- ^ ICER 2004 reg 7(2) as amended by the Employment Rights (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2019/731 Pt 4 reg.16(3) reducing the threshold from 10%
- ^ ICER 2004 reg 20(4)(c)
References※
- PL Davies and C Kilpatrick, 'UK Worker Representation after Single Channel' (2004) 33 Industrial Law Journal 121
- KD Ewing and GM Truter, 'The Information and Consultation of Employees' Regulations: Voluntarism's Bitter Legacy' (2005) 68 Modern Law Review 626