This website uses cookies

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. By using our website, you agree to our Privacy Policy

Jean-Yves Gilg

Editor, Solicitors Journal

'Shares for rights' becomes law

News
Share:
'Shares for rights' becomes law

By

ERR Act enshrines health and safety change

George Osborne's employee shareholder scheme has passed into law, as the Growth and Infrastructure Bill was granted Royal Assent.

Under the scheme, which is expected to be introduced in autumn 2013, an employer and employee will be able to agree that, in return for fully paid up shares worth at least £2,000, the employee will give up statutory rights on unfair dismissal and redundancy pay.

A number of safeguards were included in the Act, following amendments in the Lords.

Before an employee can agree to the new status, the employer must provide full details about the shares and the rights they carry, including, amongst other things, whether they carry any voting and dividend rights.

The worker must also take independent legal advice on the terms and effect of the agreement, and the employer must pay the reasonable costs of obtaining it, even if the employee ultimately decides not to accept the offer.

Meanwhile the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill also received Royal Assent.

The Act includes clause 61, which puts the onus on workers making civil claims for personal injury to prove that employers breached their statutory duties under the health and safety legislation.

The House of Commons rejected a Lords amendment to the bill, which would have removed clause 61.

Andy McDonald, Labour MP for Middlesbrough, said the clause, introduced during the Commons report stage of the bill last October, went "much further" than Professor Lofstedt's review of health and safety law.

"Professor Lofstedt referred to ending civil liability, but only in relation to strict liability, whereas these proposals will impact on the vast majority of employer liability cases, where breaches of statutory duty allegations are usually more important than negligence," McDonald said.

"In every case, the injured worker will have to prove that the employer knew, or ought to have known, that a machine was unsafe, equipment was faulty, or there had been previous accidents-something known to the employer but unlikely to be known by the employee."