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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll