On June 11, the UK Government released a draft statutory instrument (The Companies (Miscellaneous Reporting) Regulations 2018) and accompanying FAQs, which, subject only to Parliamentary approval, will require additional disclosures to be made in the Annual Reports of Listed PLCs* for financial years beginning on or after January 1, 2019. These changes will be implemented via amendments to the Large & Medium-sized Companies and Groups (Accounts & Reports) Regulations 2008.

These new reporting requirements are part of the Government’s wider package of corporate governance reforms announced in August 2017 (for further information on the wider package of reforms, click here, for further information on the UK Corporate Governance Code developments, click here, and for further information on the reforms affecting large private companies and unlisted PLCs, click here).

Summary of the Additional Disclosures Required in the Annual Report

Subject to meeting the relevant thresholds described below, Listed PLCs* will be required to make additional disclosures regarding, among other things:

  • The ratio of the CEO’s pay (the single total figure of remuneration) to the median (50th), 25th and 75th percentile full-time equivalent remuneration of their UK employees;
  • The impact of the future share price on executive pay; and
  • How the directors have engaged with employees.

To read the entire Alert, click here. Thanks to Stephen Ratcliffe and our UK colleagues for sharing.

* A Listed PLC, otherwise referred to as a “quoted company”, is a UK incorporated PLC with equity shares listed on the FCA’s Official List, or on NASDAQ, the NYSE, or a recognised stock exchange in the EEA. It does not include AIM listed companies.

Two recent events in the US vividly illustrate the growing centrality of gender pay equity issues. On one side of the ledger, in early April 2018, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in Rizo v. Fresno County Office of Education, held that an employee’s prior salary—either alone or in a combination of factors—cannot be used to justify paying women less than men in comparable jobs. On the other side of the ledger, the US Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, on April 20, 2018, announced that it is upending standards implemented during President Obama’s administration designed to promote gender pay equity among federal contractors. Under this new policy, employers will be able to decide for themselves how their employees should be categorized and analyzed for purposes of fair pay investigations by the government.

These two US events are merely the latest examples of increased activity around the globe with regard to the issue of pay equity.  Click here to read more.

  Yesterday we hosted a dynamic panel featuring four of our favorite European colleagues for a breakfast briefing in Palo Alto. Susan Eandi moderated a lively discussion with Nadège Dallais (France), Bernhard Trappehl (Germany), Fermin Guardiola (Spain) and Nicola James (United Kingdom).

Our colleagues gave guests an inside look at sociopolitical trends driving employment law change in each of their respective countries, as well as sharing important updates related to practical issues employers are currently facing.

In case you missed it, here are a few of the headlines:

Continue Reading Takeaways From Our European Employment Law Breakfast Briefing

In our Global Employer Monthly eAlert, we capture recent employment law developments from across the globe to help you keep up with the ever-changing employment law landscape around the globe.

In this month’s issue, we share updates from Argentina, Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Italy, the Netherlands, South Africa, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Click here to view.

In our latest podcast, Baker McKenzie partner Ben Ho introduces Monica Kurnatowska to talk about employment laws in the UK and give an overview of what changed in 2017 as well as what we can expect for the year ahead.

Key Takeaways:

  1. Brexit – UK employment rights will generally be unaffected in the short term, but there is concern from nationals from other EU states about their right to remain, despite attempt to re-assure them by the government
  2. Gig economy – closer scrutiny on misclassification of workers
  3. Gender pay gap – companies with 250 or more employee in GB, are required to publish key data points relating to the difference in pay between men and women

Download now on iTunes | Android | Stitcher | TuneInGoogle Play.

We are pleased to announce our new “Employer Report” podcast series.

Each 15-minute episode gives an inside view into employment laws in various countries around the world, highlighting legislative changes, trends, and tips for US multinational employers. Our first five countries available now: Brazil, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom, and Spain.

Download these episodes now on iTunes | Android | Stitcher | TuneInGoogle Play.

Our Baker McKenzie colleagues in our London office just shared their January 2018 Employment Law Update. Find it HERE.

Highlights include:

  • Increases to statutory payments for time off work
  • Tribunal claims: volume of claims increasing following abolition of tribunal fees
  • Brexit: proposed technical changes to employment laws published
  • Gender pay gap reporting: pressure on employers increases as government indicates that it will publish details of employers who have not yet registered on the government website

For more information, please contact your Baker McKenzie lawyer.

Keeping up with the pace of change in employment law around the world is quite a challenge.

In our Global Employer Monthly eAlert, we capture recent key developments in employment law from across the globe.

In this month’s issue, we share updates from Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France, Mexico, Singapore, South Africa, Vietnam, Ukraine, the UK and the US.

Click here to read the latest eAlert!

 

A recent Court of Appeal decision in the UK (Tillman v Egon Zehnder Limited) found that a post-termination non-compete restriction was unreasonably wide (and therefore unenforceable) on the basis that there was no carve out for shareholdings in the typically broad restriction which provided that the employee could not “directly or indirectly engage or be concerned or interested in any business carried on in competition with” the employer.

The Tillman court declined to sever (or “blue pencil”) the offensive wording and enforce the remaining provisions. Instead, the court invalidated the entire agreement.

Lots of non-compete covenants are broadly drafted and include catchall phrases like “concerned or interested in” and often do not include an express carve-out for shareholdings. As such, we suggest a quick review of your non-compete covenants in the UK (and other Commonwealth jurisdictions such as Hong Kong, Singapore and Canada) to determine if they are at risk of being deemed invalid. Seeking to enforce an invalid restriction could have costly consequences. However, there are steps you can take now, to mitigate the risk of voiding a restriction, even with existing employees.

Reach out to your Baker McKenzie lawyer for more details.