This is such a great forum topic since every time it comes up it promotes long exchanges about something we all surely agree upon-whatever side we sit at the table. Employees have important knowledge and experience that is worthy of review as part of a risk assessment. However it is the employer who has a duty to assess risks arising.... The employer also has a duty to consult....... Employees have a duty to co-operate........... If we take consultation to mean "the exchange of views and establishment of a dialogue between the parties involved" where on earth is the problem? How you achieve the exchange and dialogue is your choice but do it you must. (subject to identified exclusions of course) Whether the consultation assures a "suitable and sufficient" or not is, IMHO, semantics whichever point of view you hold about the worth or otherwise of the relevant parties in the process. Either view could be proven correct in specific circumstances. Consultation can be achieved in many ways. The group of clip board hugging worthies walking around a factory or huddled around a meeting room table to "do it together" are but two ways. An engineer talking to a single union rep who is also a qualified engineer and discussing a very specific technical aspect of a risk assessment is another for example. However, to return to the opening question. I can see absolutely no reason, beyond a paper exercise to provide audit evidence, why I would want a union rep to sign a risk assessment as part of a consultation exercise. I am not at all surprised that they have refused to do so. I merely record how consultation is achieved, who was involved and any outcome from that consultation. If an auditor wants to "prove" those facts, then go ask the people identified in my record.