§ Mr. BurdenTo ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of total notifications to his Department of impending redundancies under section 193 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 did not fully meet the requirements of that section in each of the last five years. [30705]
§ Mr. Oppenheim[holding answer 26 June 1995]: The information is as follows:
Year Per cent. 1990 27 1991 27 1992 31 1993 23 1994 22
§ Mr. BurdenTo ask the Secretary of State for Employment what inquiries are considered to be appropriate for his Department to make when an employer554W is alleged to have failed to notify impending redundancies to the Department under the terms of section 193 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. [30703]
§ Mr. Oppenheim[holding answer 26 June 1995]: The Department seeks details of proposals from an employer who is alleged to have failed to notify and, if appropriate, an explanation of the reasons for such failure.
§ Mr. BurdenTo ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many instances there have been of an employer failing on more than one occasion to comply with, or fully comply with, the notice requirements of section 193 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 in the last five years. [30706]
§ Mr. Oppenheim[holding answer 26 June 1995]: This information is not available.
§ Mr. BurdenTo ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the six most common kinds of failure by employers to meet fully the requirements of section 193 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 concerning notification of impending redundancies to his Department in each of the last five years. [30704]
§ Mr. Oppenheim[holding answer 26 June 1995]: Reasons for non-compliance are not separately recorded. The most common reason would be failure to give the minimum notice required by section 193(1) or (2) of the Act.