"There is an enormous amount of work around," says Elaine Aarons, head of Eversheds' London-based employment team. Last week Aarons worked into the early hours every night and this week is likely to be no different. If it is any comfort to Aarons, she is not alone.
The work is being generated by the increasingly sophisticated way in which issues regarding employment law are influencing the outcome of corporate deals.
Employment lawyers are now not just small pieces of the larger corporate-driven jigsaw, but are acting as project managers in their own right. A rapidly-changing rule book and ever developing case law only add to the pressure to provide up-to-date advice.
A raft of European-inspired legislation has either hit the books or is in the process of going through Parliament.
The latest is the Employment Relations Bill, which went public on 27 January and which is sponsored by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Stephen Byers.
The consultation process started when the Fairness at Work White Paper was released last year, but professional bodies like the Employment Lawyers Association and the City of London Solicitors Company employment law sub-committee still plan to make their views on the Bill known.
At the heart of the Bill are proposals to improve the rights of employees. These include plans to lower the qualification period for unfair dismissal from two years to one and to raise the limit on employees' compensation for such dismissal from £12,000 to £50,000.
The Bill also details exhaustive provisions on trade union recognition and the extension of maternal and parental leave obligations.
As the Bill passes through Parliament, the extent of the proposals and their anticipated impact on clients will become clearer. So for the time being, practices are being kept busy advising on existing rules.
The firms that boast some of the larger companies and institutions as their clients are particularly busy organising and smoothing through employment issues raised by mergers and acquisitions.
Behind reports of redundancies at newly-merged BPAmoco and speculation that the same will happen at the London operations of merging French banks Societe Generale and Paribas are fundamental employment law issues.
As things stand, if companies transfer assets rather than shares during a merger or takeover, elected employee representatives must be informed and consulted over any planned changes to the terms of employment of the workforce.
A £25m case brought by the Manufacturing Science Finance union against Royal & Sun Alliance on 4 February came as a direct result of these rules. In this case, the employees allege that the company failed to inform and consult them before the news broke on Radio Four's Today programme.
Baker & McKenzie's head of employment Fraser Younson says: "Clients must start consulting employees in good time. They must not start issuing notices of termination before the end of the consultation period [90 days for more than 100 employees]."
Eversheds is acting on the merger of PolyGram Seagram in the UK and 42 other jurisdictions, and Deutsche Bank has instructed Simmons & Simmons to handle the UK employment issues of its merger with Bankers Trust.
Currently, one of the most contentious issues is the reluctance of senior management to inform employee representatives of price sensitive information relating to their strategy. In the past, UK companies have kept plans within a core group of senior advisers while they are worked out.
But the obligation to consult employees impacts on the time-tabling of any deal and William Dawson, head of employment at Simmons & Simmons, says the sooner executives begin the process the better. Younson agrees.
"Employers now have to factor in and trust employees to maintain confidentiality," he says.
Experience in continental Europe on this point is positive. Work councils have been a common feature for some time and there have been few problems of confidentiality.
Younson says the threat of job losses and even a criminal record in some jurisdictions is enough to encourage most employee representatives to keep market sensitive information secret.
"UK management are not used to consulting employees," Younson says. "But you will see the start of a sea change in the next few years as they are forced to change to deal with it."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTribunal Dismisses AML Case Against Kennedys’ Chief Risk Officer, But Ex-Partner Fined
2 minute readLatham, Skadden Among Firms Acting on Mubadala's $3.4 B Acquisition of CI Financial
2 minute readDLA Piper Takes Greenberg Traurig’s Corporate Partner for Seoul
Cuatrecasas Elevates Seven to Partner in Spain and Latin America
Trending Stories
- 1Friday Newspaper
- 2Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 3Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 4NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 5A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250