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

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll