Employers involved in a business sale or change of service provider should err on the side of caution when deciding if administrative changes amount to 'measures' about which they must consult. 'Measures' can include changes which are not disadvantageous to employees, eg to the date for payment of salary for the month in which the transfer occurs.
A business sale took place four days into a calendar month. Employees usually paid monthly in arrears were instead to be paid by the transferor for the first three days of the month shortly after the transfer, with the remainder of the monthly salary paid at the end of the month by the transferee. The tax on the sum for the three days would be reclaimed at the end of the month. The transferor also paid employees an amount for holiday accrued during those three days, which could then be reclaimed by the transferee.
The EAT held that these were measures about which a transferor had a duty to consult employee representatives. The effect on employees does not need to be disadvantageous for the duty to apply, and the changes were not de minimis given that the staff were low-paid and clearly worried by the changes. Part of the purpose of the duty to consult is to enable transitional arrangements to be explained to employees and for them to be reassured (if appropriate) that they will not be disadvantaged. (Todd v Strain, EAT)