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+

Case lawInformation & consultation

University breached information and consultation of employees regulations

by Jenna Clarke 10 May 2016
by Jenna Clarke 10 May 2016 The University of London's Senate House. High Level Photography/REX/Shutterstock
The University of London's Senate House. High Level Photography/REX/Shutterstock

In University of London v Morrissey, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found that the University of London breached the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004, when it asked two recognised trade unions, whose members constituted around 25% of the workforce, to nominate employee representatives.

Information and consultation of employees

Informing and consulting on employment matters

Information and communication policy and procedure

Information and consultation: case law

Application of information and consultation legislation worked examples

University of London v Morrissey

Background

The Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004 provide for employees to negotiate an agreement with their employer, under which the employer agrees to inform and consult those employees about economic and employment-related matters.

The Regulations state that, once a valid request to negotiate an agreement has been submitted by at least 10% of employees, or the employer has given a valid notification of intention to negotiate, the employer must negotiate with employee representatives to seek to reach an agreement on information and consultation arrangements.

The arrangements for an election of employee representatives must ensure that all employees are represented and have been entitled to take part in the election process.

Facts

The university recognised a need to negotiate an agreement to inform and consult employees after a valid request was submitted to the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) by Mrs Morrissey, on behalf of 162 employees (more than 10% of the university’s 1,206 employees).

The university asked its two recognised trade unions to nominate representatives during a meeting attended by representatives of the two unions. It then asked employees to vote on the appointment of the elected representatives identified jointly by the university and the unions.

There were no discussions with non-union members regarding the form of the new consultative forum, or about the appointment of employee representatives.

The university appeared to have viewed the requirements for information and consultation arrangements under the Regulations as an extension to its existing collective bargaining arrangements in place with its recognised unions.

The university made no attempt to invite non-union members to put forward candidates, or to agree that they, as non-union members, could be represented by union representatives.

Decision

A complaint was made to the CAC that the requirements of the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004 had not been complied with. The CAC upheld the complaint.

The EAT agreed with the CAC that the university had failed to comply with its obligations under the Regulations. The trade union members represented only around 25% of the workforce.

The arrangements did not enable all employees to effectively participate in the election of nominees, even though all employees were asked to approve the proposed candidates.

The candidates were proposed jointly by the university and the unions and the university had effectively asked employees to ratify a course of action that was its preferred outcome, rather than adopting an outcome that all employees preferred.

The university had therefore not been sufficiently inclusive in its approach.

The university did not succeed in arguing that, while it was obliged to put suitable arrangements in place to negotiate an agreement, it was for the employer to decide whether or not representatives should be elected or appointed and what was important was that all employees were represented.

The EAT explained that the purpose of the Regulations is to make arrangements more effective by giving the whole workforce the opportunity to participate meaningfully in the information and consultation process.

The process must lead to effective representation. The arrangements put in place by the university did not satisfy this purpose.

Implications for employers

This case is a reminder to employers of the importance of compliance with the requirements regarding the election and appointment of employee representatives.

If an employer fails to initiate negotiations for an information and consultation agreement when required to do so, or negotiations have failed to lead to an agreement, or like here, the requirements of the election process have not been met, the onerous standard information and consultation provisions will apply.

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.

The standard provisions can apply only at undertaking level and unlike a negotiated agreement, may not cover more than one undertaking or provide for different arrangements in different parts of the undertaking.

The employer will not be able to rely on a negotiated agreement where the election process failed to comply with the requirements of the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004.

Jenna Clarke

Jenna Clarke is a senior associate at DLA Piper.

previous post
Employer withdrew job offer due to sickness absence
next post
Bosses still being rewarded for underperformance

You may also like

Poundland closures mean over 1,000 jobs at risk

18 Jun 2025

School’s bid to appeal Kristie Higgs ruling refused...

11 Jun 2025

Court rejects Liberty’s legal challenge against EHRC consultation

9 Jun 2025

US Supreme Court lowers burden of proof for...

6 Jun 2025

Liberty to challenge EHRC consultation in High Court

3 Jun 2025

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

2 Jun 2025

Consultation launched after Supreme Court ‘sex’ ruling

20 May 2025

EHRC bows to pressure and extends gender consultation

15 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+