Redundancy talks period 'should have been cut to 30 days' They could have chosen the more radical, more progressive, growth-orientated approach, which frankly, would have given employers more confidence and ability to recruit. Tim Thomas, head of employment at the EEF, said its members thought 30 days was "sufficient" for consultation, although he added that the new rules would help create a more flexible labour market. The changes come as new figures show that employment tribunal claims over redundancies have jumped by more than 40pc in recent months. The number of claims made for failure to adequately inform and consult staff over redundancies rose 41pc to 2,400 in the three months to July 2012, compared to 1,700 in the previous three months, the statistics from the Tribunals Service, obtained by EMW law firm, show. The law firm said reducing the consultation period for job losses would likely lead to less tribunal claims clogging up the system, suggesting a move to 30 days would be more beneficial for employers. However, some business groups were content with the 45-day period proposed. John Wastnage, policy adviser at the British Chambers of Commerce, said: "We think 45 days is appropriate; 30 days is too short in some cases. This reduces uncertainty and the Government has reached a happy medium. In a written statement to Parliament on Tuesday, business minister Jo Swinson said: "The 45 days will be a minimum consultation period. We received plenty of evidence to show that consultations can and do last longer than the minimum period and we expect that to continue where circumstances make this desirable. But Chuka Umunna, the business spokesman for the Labour Party, attacked the move on his Twitter feed. "Ministers think watering down people's rights at work is the big bazooka to get growth going, and yet there is no evidence to support this," he wrote.