Eagle-eyed HR professionals may have noticed a recent EAT judgment in which UK Coal was found to be in breach of the requirement to fully consult with employees and their representatives during a redundancy exercise, raising the question of involvement in the decision-making process. Quentin Colborn addresses the impact of this on the HR profession.

I think HR can fall into two groups; those who revel in a bit of employment law and those who find it a big yawn and something better left to the lawyers.

I think this recent EAT judgment will interest both groups. It’s worth saying at this stage that while this case is an EAT judgment, and hence now an authority on the issue, it may still be appealed – and bearing in mind the size of the award I would suggest an appeal on the legal issues is quite possible.

In legal terms, the judgment is significant in that it pushes the boundaries for consultation further back along the decision-making chain. Potentially, in future, consultation will need to start earlier and include details of a commercial nature that have not historically been the subject of consultation. Within many organisations this may pose a threat to the established cultural norms in terms of employee communication and consultation.

There also may be significant commercial issues. Many businesses have been loathe to share details of their business plans with employees and their representatives for fear that confidentiality may be broken.

My personal experience is that in reality very few confidences in these situations have been broken – I would be interested to hear of others experiences. Am I alone in thinking that confidences are generally maintained?

The issue of consultation becomes more interesting when looking at the background of the organisation. Those with European parents generally have had experience of dealing with employee representatives and the surrounding legislative background, while others, often from the USA, may have less concept of the principles of consultation within their culture. This is likely to become more challenging as the requirement to reveal more information during the consultation phase becomes clearer.

A chance for real HR involvement

Paradoxically, this judgment may do HR a lot of good – as well as bringing more business to the legal experts. On one hand, it may emphasise the need for sound advice on redundancies and reorganisations, but at a much deeper level it may lead to more real involvement for HR practitioners in business decision-making.

Many organisations have adopted the terminology ‘HR business partner’ or similar. Frequently I suspect this is an attempt to make HR more ‘relevant’ and does not necessarily indicate any significant change in role from a straightforward HR manager.

As an aside, I wonder how many organisations have finance or IT business partners? Despite being ‘business partners’ I suspect that when major redundancies and/or closures are planned, the HR involvement is in the areas of implementation, rather than decision-making. The business leaders decide that cost savings are necessary and the HR role is to carry them out as effectively as possible.

What I think may happen as a result of this judgment is that HR professionals become more involved in business decision-making, including the commercial reasoning behind it, rather than simply the implementation.

The question must be – are we up to it?

What is your experience of consultation? Has it ever gone wrong and confidences broken? How involved do you see your HR function being in business decision-making – or does it just implement the decisions of others? Let’s have your views.

Quentin Colborn is an independent HR consultant based in Essex who advises management teams on operational and strategic HR issues. Quentin can be contacted on 01376 571360 or via Quentin@qcpeople.co.uk. For further information, please visit: www.qcpeople.co.uk.