Redundancy should be a last resort, Stephen Robinson, of DLA Piper, argues

DESPITE a more positive economic outlook, employers still need to implement organisational change, including making redundancies.

Many employers would prefer to avoid dismissals so as not to lose talent and skill, and instead are focusing on alternatives.

Research from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) confirmed that 50% of companies had introduced recruitment freezes as an alternative to redundancy, while 44% had terminated agency or temporary worker contracts.

Further measures considered included cutting bonuses, wage reductions and even reducing hours.

Many of the alternative options to avoid compulsory redundancies require changes to terms and conditions of employment to bring them into effect.

Express agreement to contractual changes should avoid ongoing disputes and can remove the threat of tribunal claims.

However, if redundancies do need to be seriously considered, there is now a greater risk of protective award claims being brought where 20 or more redundancies are proposed.

With the current legal uncertainty as to when consultation actually starts, employers are at risk of costly protective award claims if consultation is not started early enough in the process. A decision is due in the next 12 months, but in the meantime employers need to think laterally before making job cuts.