header-logo header-logo

Rights for shares controversy

10 October 2012
Issue: 7533 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Chancellor’s employment proposals compared to “a motorway pile-up”

Employment lawyers have raised questions about Chancellor George Osborne’s proposal for employees to trade in some of their statutory rights for shares.

Under Osborne’s proposal, scheduled to come into force in April, employees would be able to accept between £2,000 and £50,000 of shares in return for giving up their UK rights on unfair dismissal, redundancy, flexible working and time off for training. Female employees would be required to give 16 rather than eight weeks’ notice of a firm date of return from maternity leave. Discrimination rights would remain. Employees would be exempt from capital gains tax for any increase on the value of the shares.

Employers would be able to insist on the new type of contracts for new employees.

Rob McCreath, partner at City employment firm Archon Solicitors, says the proposal is “eyecatching—in rather the same way as a motorway pile-up”.

“It will not deter people from bringing employment tribunal claims if they wish to, as they will still have a raft of other (largely EU-based) rights to rely upon. The legislation will be complex. It will have to provide for share valuations and buybacks in private companies and to prevent potential abuse by employers, for example through the creative use of different classes of shares. This complexity will generate additional disputes and litigation.

“For the vast majority of small and medium-sized private companies, the administrative, practical and legal implications of having substantial numbers of minority shareholders (with associated rights) will be unpalatable.

“If the plan disproportionately affects the rights of employees taking maternity leave (as currently appears to be intended) that aspect is likely to be challenged as being in breach of EU law.”

James Hall, associate at Charles Russell, says the proposal leaves “many questions unanswered”, including whether the shares would be given or purchased and whether they would carry voting rights; whether the “employee-owners” would be classified as employed or self-employed for tax purposes, and how much information they would be given as to the health and prospects of the company; and whether their shares would be “commensurate with their position and the rights they will be giving up”.

Issue: 7533 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Birketts—trainee cohort

Birketts—trainee cohort

Firm welcomes new cohort of 29 trainee solicitors for 2025

Keoghs—four appointments

Keoghs—four appointments

Four partner hires expand legal expertise in Scotland and Northern Ireland

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Real estate team in Yorkshire welcomes new partner

NEWS
Robert Taylor of 360 Law Services warns in this week's NLJ that adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) risks entrenching disadvantage for SME law firms, unless tools are tailored to their needs
The Court of Protection has ruled in Macpherson v Sunderland City Council that capacity must be presumed unless clearly rebutted. In this week's NLJ, Sam Karim KC and Sophie Hurst of Kings Chambers dissect the judgment and set out practical guidance for advisers faced with issues relating to retrospective capacity and/or assessments without an examination
Delays and dysfunction continue to mount in the county court, as revealed in a scathing Justice Committee report and under discussion this week by NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School. Bulk claims—especially from private parking firms—are overwhelming the system, with 8,000 cases filed weekly
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve charts the turbulent progress of the Employment Rights Bill through the House of Lords, in this week's NLJ
From oligarchs to cosmetic clinics, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) target journalists, activists and ordinary citizens with intimidating legal tactics. Writing in NLJ this week, Sadie Whittam of Lancaster University explores the weaponisation of litigation to silence critics
back-to-top-scroll