header-logo header-logo

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

Rights for shares controversy

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

EIP—Stuart Malcolm

EIP—Stuart Malcolm

EIP strengthens Commercial practice with a new partner

Ellisons—Francesca Brown

Ellisons—Francesca Brown

Ellisons welcomes Francesca Brown to Family team

Shakespeare Martineau—Marie Bourke

Shakespeare Martineau—Marie Bourke

Shakespeare Martineau strengthens Sheffield regulatory practice with new hires

NEWS
A wide-ranging Civil Way column highlights developments from insolvency procedure to employment law, but one case stands out for its lessons on bankruptcy, family homes and digital communications
A sprawling Intellectual Property Office battle between House of Fraser and Frasers Property has delivered a masterclass in modern trade mark law
Courts in England and Wales and Singapore are increasingly confronting complex disputes over international child relocation as families become more globally mobile
The government’s long-awaited family law reform consultation could mark a turning point for domestic abuse victims navigating financial remedy proceedings, but significant challenges remain
A new commercial court pilot giving the public access to documents used in hearings, including expert reports, is raising difficult questions about transparency and privacy
back-to-top-scroll