Make Work Pay: threshold for triggering collective redundancy obligations consultation – Acas response

This is the Acas Council response to the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) Make Work Pay: threshold for triggering collective redundancy obligations consultation.

Acas responses to specific consultation questions

Question 6: What is your assessment of the benefits of a collective redundancy consultation?

Benefits of consultation

1. Acas welcomes the opportunity to respond to the government's consultation on the threshold for triggering collective redundancy obligations.
2. The collective redundancy process is an important issue for Acas and we have direct experience of what matters in disputes over redundancy:
   • 'redundancies, lay-offs and business transfers' is one of the most common topics for Acas's helpline service, representing 14% of calls (20,650) in April to June 2025 alone
   • website sessions for Acas guidance on redundancy represented 2.5% (171,000) of total sessions in 2025 – this includes 23,771 website sessions for our guidance on collective redundancy consultation specifically
   • Acas received 19 collective redundancy disputes for conciliation in 2024 to 2025 (3.6% of total collective cases) – Acas collective conciliators have important and extensive experience of collective redundancy disputes
3. We welcome the policy intent behind the government's decision to reform the collective redundancy process to enable wider consultation with affected employees.
4. Acas's extensive experience of the benefits of collective consultation echo the government's view set out in paragraph 8 of the consultation document. Based on our observations, consulting workers and their representatives can improve working relationships, help employers make better decisions and identify risks, and help organisations develop common solutions.
5. Collective consultation can enable workers to put forward ideas and concerns more freely. Employee representatives are also likely to be easier for the employer to inform and hold in-depth discussions with. The Management and Wellbeing Practices Survey from 2018 and 2019 found that among businesses who consulted over redundancies, 3 in 10 said they made changes because of the consultation. But that rose to 42% where there was a union present, suggesting that embedded representatives can encourage an employer to take employees' views into account.
6. Nevertheless, these changes come at a challenging period for the economy: new consultation rights are going live in a period of rising redundancy numbers [Office for National Statistics]. In response, we have included in this consultation response the critical conditions for success of these reforms to reap benefits to workers, employers and the wider economy.

Capturing the benefits of collective consultation

7. In Acas's extensive experience, there are significant benefits to employers engaging in collective consultation beyond statutory requirements alone. This view is also shared by organisations with similar insight and experience:
   • CIPD research [into industrial relations and trade unions] shows that 86% of employers with employee representative arrangements report a range of organisational benefits, including:
     • an independent voice to raise concerns
     • keeping the workforce well informed
     • earlier identification of workplace issues
   • more specifically, TUC research [into collective redundancy consultation] highlights that effective negotiations and longer consultation periods can help:
     • reduce job losses
     • assist employers to avoid the costs associated with staff layoffs, including redundancy payments, the loss of skilled staff and institutional knowledge, and recruitment and training for new staff
     • identify efficiency savings, examine options for reorganising the organisations, generate increased orders and increase deployment opportunities
     • provide time for government agencies to identify investment opportunities and to provide support through job search and training for staff at risk

Realising benefits: conditions for success

8. Whilst the benefits of collective consultation are well established, Acas acknowledges that realising those benefits is not a given. There are 2 conditions for success where we recommend further action:
   • positive intent – some employers do not yet recognise the value of collective engagement with trade unions. CIPD research from 2025 [on industrial relations and trade unions] found organisations with union representatives are more positive about the relationship between trade unions and management. These findings mirror Acas's own experiences: that employers who work with unions are generally positive about doing so. By contrast, employers with little or no experience of working with unions are more likely to be anxious about it. Acas recommends the government addresses this by restating and reinforcing the value of effective industrial relations and good collective relations
   • investment in education and training for both trade union representatives and employers – Acas research on 'Continuity and change in collective workplace conflict in Britain' finds that the skills, knowledge and confidence that underpin effective industrial relations have diminished in recent years. Acas polling of 2,000 business representatives in 2020 found a concerning knowledge gap around the legal requirement to consult staff before making redundancies. 24% were not aware of their legal responsibilities, rising to 33% of small businesses. Insight from Acas collective conciliators suggests that effective collective consultation requires workplace representatives and managers to have the requisite authority, information and skills to act on behalf of affected employees. Acas recommends the government invests in building skills and knowledge to support regulatory reform
9. As well as strategic conditions for success there are also organisation-level conditions, which we recommend are captured within wider guidance and resources, such as model agreements for employers, unions and employee representatives. This will be particularly valuable for organisations in a collective redundancy consultation for the first time. This should include a focus on:
   • good communication – Acas collective conciliators report that a key driver of disputes in collective redundancy situations is delayed or inadequate communication with the relevant trade union, staff body or Acas. Poor communication can make the process feel like a 'tick box' exercise to employees. Whilst an employer may believe, and ultimately be judged to, have met their legal obligation to collectively consult in this scenario, poor communication processes can carry longer-term costs (for example, employment tribunal cases, poorer industrial relations), as well as bypassing the benefits of early and extended consultation outlined in paragraph 7
   • negotiated processes – Acas recommends that the employer and staff representatives work together to negotiate the process for redundancy consultation. We believe that this not only creates conditions for a fairer and more effective process but also reduces the potential for disputes. Acas collective conciliators recommend that negotiated agreements between unions (or other worker representatives if there is no union) and employers address the following key issues as a minimum:
     • explaining the rights and responsibilities of all parties and the principles that inform the redundancy process
     • establishing channels of communication within and between unions, employers and workers across the affected sites
     • acknowledging points of tension in the redundancy process and practical ways to address them
     • ways of identifying and addressing potential equality issues
     • offering mental health and wellbeing support to impacted employees
   • supporting smaller employers – many unions and larger employers will already have negotiated redundancy processes (or model processes to use as a starting point for negotiations) that will need updating in light of the new legislation. However, smaller employers, who are now more likely to need to collectively consult for the first time, are less likely to have similar agreements in place. We recommend that the government works with social partners to develop resources such as model agreements and templates to build familiarity and support good industrial relations practice by pointing users towards important issues to get right

Question 9: What is your assessment of the extent to which running collective redundancy consultations is burdensome for employers? Please provide any additional evidence which helps to support your point. 

• Very burdensome
• Moderately burdensome
• Slightly burdensome
• Don't know       
• Other  

Acas response

Other

10. Whilst there are, naturally, time, resource and administrative costs to implementing a collective redundancy procedure, Acas's position is that they are outweighed by the benefits of collective consultation, which helps cover all the options before the employer makes a decision.
11. Acas already recommends consultation as good practice in situations below the proposed threshold. Making the new process simple will help lead to balanced outcomes for employers and workers.
12. CIPD research [on industrial relations and trade unions] suggests that 50% of employers already have staff representative arrangements for informing and consulting employees. While the strength of these arrangements may vary, it does suggest that many employers have basic arrangements in place, particularly in larger organisations, which are also more likely to have trade union presence. This provides a strong base on which employers can develop consultation arrangements in response to the new legislation.
13. However, the same research indicates only 10% of employers had consultative committees. Therefore, employers may need support to develop existing arrangements into effective structures that make the most of the benefits of collective consultation.
14. New collective consultation obligations are a positive right for employees and trade unions, but there is still an onus on both to work with employers to achieve an effective process. Achieving the policy aim of better managed conflict around collective redundancies will require well- informed and meaningful consultation. A token process will still create administrative work but be far less likely to generate the benefits of good consultation. The greatest burdens arise from poorly managed processes, where trust is low, decision-making suffers, and there is a lasting impact on workplace relations. These wider costs would potentially be in addition to increased protective awards.
15. All parties should be conscious of the fact that a collective redundancy situation poses a different and more intense set of challenges than staff body, trade union or employer representatives may have previously experienced. Given the skills that are required and the stresses that all parties can face in a collective redundancy situation, it is important that support and training are available to ensure that the personnel involved are best placed to meet these challenges . Such an approach has the additional benefits of building trust and resilience into the process and developing skills, experience and institutional memory in the event of a collective redundancy situation arising in the future.

Question 26: Are there any concerns or risks that should be considered with the preferred method (Method 1: Fixed Number)?

16. Acas lacks the operational insight and data to be able to take a position on a specific method for calculating the new threshold. However, we strongly recommend that whatever method is chosen by the government is simple and not itself the cause of disputes. It should therefore be:
    • uncontentious to apply
    • understandable to non-experts
    • workable without complex administrative systems
17. Although not a direct matter for this consultation, we advise that companies involved in collective redundancy situations should contact Acas at an early stage of the process.
18. Acas recommends that employers carry out collective consultation as good practice in redundancy situations below the proposed threshold. However, we can foresee situations where proposed redundancies reach the organisational threshold despite the rationale and processes for the proposals at different sites being unconnected.
19. Acas also notes that the new legislation does not require employers to:
    • consult all of the appropriate representatives together
    • undertake the consultation with a view to reaching the same agreement with all of the appropriate representatives
20. Nevertheless, we assess that it is likely some level of central planning or coordination would be in place for an employer to propose the threshold number of redundancies. At the lowest end of the government's preferred threshold, to hit the 250 number in 90 days would require about 19 proposed redundancies a week for 13 weeks, across a sufficient number of sites to avoid hitting the existing 20 proposed redundancies at one establishment trigger.
21. We recommend that parties pay attention to the context when designing the process to decide whether it is proportionate and effective. This may involve organisation-wide elements as well as site-specific. The overall aim should be to ensure that the process is useful to all parties, using the flexibility in the currently drafted legislation.
22. Further, however, we do advise that employers consider the benefits of holding joint consultation with employee representatives across multiple sites, especially where there is a cross-site or whole-organisation rationale or decision. Acas officials believe that taking this approach can:
    • reflect that geographically-dispersed teams may be subject to common decision making to a greater extent than with colleagues based at the same location but working in different sections of the organisation
    • help build trust in the redundancy process and selection process across the wider workforce
    • help track proposed redundancies across all locations to avoid breaching the new consultation threshold
    • mitigate against unintentional non-compliance with legal obligations and create an evidence base in the event of legal action being taken
    • reduce perceptions of a 'race to the bottom' and competition between different parts of the business
    • offer an opportunity to share best practice, identify problems and develop organisation-wide alternatives from different employee constituencies and demographics
    • help develop skills, experience and institutional knowledge

Question 35: Do you believe that the proposals discussed in this consultation will have an impact on individuals with a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010?  

• Yes
• No
• Don't know
• Other

Acas response

Yes

23. Acas believes the proposed changes to the collective redundancy process does raise equality issues that need to be addressed. The potential for equality issues under the existing collective redundancy process are already widely acknowledged, such as discriminatory selection criteria and worse impacts on workers with protected characteristics.
24. Employees who are already marginalised may have concerns about raising questions, issues or suggestions during individual consultation, out of concern that it may put them at risk of detriment, impacting on their job prospects and working relationships. Collective consultation therefore needs to be handled well to avoid exacerbating any existing inequalities and to ensure approaches support inclusion.
25. Research by the Work Foundation from 2024 clearly shows that workers with some protected characteristics are more likely to be in more junior or insecure work. For example, a record number of disabled workers (1.45 million) are in severely insecure work. Further, when accounting for the sectors and jobs people work in and other demographic factors, women are 2.3 times more likely than men to experience severely insecure work.
26. Insecurity is just one of a myriad of factors which can impact workers' level of comfort in speaking up during individual consultation. Collective consultation gives the opportunity for those voices to be heard and questions, issues and suggestions to be raised with the protection of anonymity where necessary. Additionally, collective consultation also provides an opportunity for the views of workers with protected characteristics being given equal weight to those raised by less marginalised groups in a workplace.
27. The importance of addressing equality issues adds extra weight to the conditions for success outlined in paragraphs 8 and 9 and the importance of well-trained and informed workplace representatives and managers. Acas encourages social partners to use the new right to time off for union equality representatives to identify and address issues that might negatively impact on individuals with a protected characteristic.
28. Where there are no elected equality representatives, it is even more important that these issues are recognised in negotiated processes and again highlights the value of longer consultation periods. Acas also believes that the fair and independent selection and training of employee representatives that accurately reflect the views and diversity of the workers they act on behalf of is also essential.
29. Further, Acas also believes that our points raised in paragraph 22 about the benefits of holding joint consultation and negotiation meetings with the relevant union bargaining units and employee representatives across multiple sites are also magnified when considering the impact on marginalised groups of workers.
30. Without well-established conditions for success or joint consultation and negotiation meetings, the introduction of multi-site consultation obligations could amplify equality issues. For example, different levels of coordination, communication, training and resourcing between sites at risk of redundancy could result in equality issues going under the radar.
31. Additionally, all parties should consider whether multi-site arrangements create any issues regarding access to advice, support and information that should be addressed. For example, there may be workplaces where English is not the first language for many workers facing potential redundancy. While the employer will likely already have arrangements, such as bilingual communications, in place as part of their everyday operations, extra considerations associated with the challenges of a collective redundancy situation may need to be taken into account (for example, complex legal language).
32. Acas also recommends that all parties consider whether there are any issues relating to equity of access to digital communications. For example, it may be the case that virtual meetings are not part of some workplaces' normal working practices (such as in some areas of manufacturing, for example). Digital communications can be a useful complement to in-person meetings if managed effectively. In this scenario it would be reasonable to expect that resources and training are provided for employee representatives from such workplaces to be able to carry out their role in the consultation process effectively, providing the employer has the means to provide this level of support. We recommend that the Department of Business and Trade sets out expectations of what is considered 'reasonable' in this kind of scenario in any future Code of Practice.
33. This again speaks to Acas's central point about all parties understanding the challenges and opportunities presented by the new multi-site threshold to ensure that a consistent and equitable approach is taken across all affected workplaces.