Thanks for your quick response. To fill in as many of the blanks as I'm comfortable with: It's a big employer. Several are affected immediately by the structural changes, in terms of redeployment, though I'm sure there is nothing untoward there and the contract (and law) allows for the changes being proposed. That much I can check quite easily. What I can't find out as easily yet, is whether a very brief consultation on the changes is long enough, given that the employer has now admitted that redundancies might need to be made (as a result), BUT not for one or two years. It doesn't sound right that they can avoid a statutory (90-day?) consultation period on the structural changes, by saying that the redundancies (which they admit there could be) will not be for a year or two. It is my understanding that the unions would only have agreed to a very short consultation on the basis that no redundancies (or dismissals) would arise. Now that the employer admits that they may arise - as a result of the changes - but at a later date, it feels like the consultation on the changes itself should be the statutory (90 day?) one.

Hi there I find myself in a slightly unusual situation, which requires a slightly unusual question... I am aware that an employer must consult employees and unions on proposed redundancies, but my question is slightly different: If an employer proposes structural changes, that they admit may lead to redundancies, but only further down the line (say one or two years), after current funding runs out, are they obliged to consult on the proposed structural changes before they are implemented? If so, how long should that consultation be? They will presumably have to consult in a year or two's time, if actual redundancies are proposed then, but it is the length and scope of any consultation on the structural changes that I am interested in now (in view of this creating possible redundancies later, which they admit may be necessary). Thanks