I am writing in response to your news story ‘Publishing firm Macmillan faces £75,000 fine for breaching staff consultation regulations’ (Personnel Today, 27 February), in which James Richardson, Macmillan group personnel director, referred to respecting the views of “the majority of our staff, who have always supported our existing forms of consultation“.
Part of the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) process allows a company to make the case that suitable pre-existing processes are in place to inform and consult employees. Macmillan failed to make a case for a pre-existing agreement. Indeed, the company provided evidence to the CAC that no suitable pre-existing arrangements existed and went on to tell the CAC that it agreed that legislation should apply at Macmillan Publishers.
The fundamental issue here is that Macmillan employees wanted to be consulted and informed about the real issues that have an effect on their company, careers and job security – and this ruling provides that. Every Macmillan employee in the UK will benefit from this CAC ruling.
Given the evidence, and the decision of the CAC, Amicus is at a loss to see how the company can say it is “disappointed” by this decision when it clearly has not responded to this situation in a clear or coherent way.
Assistant general secretary,