Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Employee relationsInformation & consultationLetters

Macmillan has nothing to be disappointed about

by Personnel Today 20 Mar 2007
by Personnel Today 20 Mar 2007

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.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

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.

Tony Burke
Assistant general secretary,
Amicus

Personnel Today

Personnel Today articles are written by an expert team of award-winning journalists who have been covering HR and L&D for many years. Some of our content is attributed to "Personnel Today" for a number of reasons, including: when numerous authors are associated with writing or editing a piece; or when the author is unknown (particularly for older articles).

previous post
Smoking ban causes litter problem: The butt stops here
next post
Government changes rules to extend asbestos compensation to all sufferers

You may also like

Fear of confrontation means disputes escalate – research

25 Jun 2025

Seven ways to prepare now for the Employment...

20 Jun 2025

Poundland closures mean over 1,000 jobs at risk

18 Jun 2025

The employer strikes back: the rise of ‘quiet...

13 Jun 2025

Data ‘blind spots’ blighting employee relations

13 Jun 2025

Workplace disputes: ‘Most employment tribunals could be avoided’

12 Jun 2025

Top 10 HR questions May 2025: Failure to...

2 Jun 2025

‘Polygamous working’ is a minefield for HR

14 May 2025

Construction workers win compensation claim against defunct employer

9 May 2025

Half of workers waste two hours a day...

6 May 2025

  • Empowering working parents and productivity during the summer holidays SPONSORED | Businesses play a...Read more
  • AI is here. Your workforce should be ready. SPONSORED | From content creation...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+