Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Women don’t just need employment protection whilst on maternity leave, they also need support to transition back into work, according to diversity consultancy, The Clear Company.
In light of recent reports from The Women and Equalities Committee and calls from MPs to address the discrimination pregnant women and new mothers face at work, The Clear Company has urged businesses to consider long term support for these individuals.
The diversity consultancy has outlined that while ensuring women can return to work after maternity leave is vital, providing them with the training and support they need to transition back into work is crucial to prevent them from feeling alienated from the rest of the workplace upon their return.
Kate Headley, Development Director at The Clear Company, explains:
“While the numerous initiatives to encourage more women back to work after maternity leave are positive moves to address the issue, there are additional supplements that employers must consider in order to retain these individuals long term. Yes more females need protection at work in terms of being able to return to their job, but they also need support in making this transition. Business owners need to remember that these individuals have gone through a time of incredible change and have been away from work for a lengthy period. Not only are they likely to consider the impact of working hours on their home life, but there’s also the potential that they will hit a few bumps in the road when they start back as they learn to juggle their new personal and professional lives.
“By providing greater support for women once they are back in employment, companies will really benefit from an engaged employee who feels valued and respected and is subsequently likely to have better productivity levels and be more loyal to the brand. That’s not to say that huge amounts of money need to be invested in schemes – simple moves such as linking them up with other mothers or new parents in the business will give them a support group to turn to for advice. If you still need convincing of the benefits of encouraging more women into work, a recent report from The Anita Borg Institute (The case for investing in women) found that Fortune 500 companies with at least three female directors saw an increase in return on invested capital by at least 66%, return on sales by 42%, and return on equity by at least 53%.”
(Source: The Clear Company)
Barristers who were not trial counsel but who are instructed to represent convicted defendants in the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal have been given new guidance by the Bar Council’s Ethics Committee on their duty to check the factual basis for the appeal or risk criticism and action by the court.
The committee, which supports barristers in England & Wales on ethical issues, is urging the criminal Bar to take note of this latest advice, which relates to any case in which a new barrister is instructed in connection with a criminal appeal.
In the note, barristers are advised that they must:
This must be done, says the Bar Council document, “whether or not the grounds of appeal may make express or implied criticisms of those former legal representatives.”
Andrew Walker QC, Chairman of the Bar Council’s Ethics Committee, said: “Barristers’ primary duties are to the court. In several recent decisions, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division (CACD) has clarified and emphasised the importance of some particular duties to the court when fresh counsel are instructed to represent a convicted defendant in a criminal appeal. When the Court of Appeal highlights an issue such as this, you don’t ignore it. Barristers must not get caught out. The Court of Appeal is clearly concerned that in some cases, appeals are being advanced on grounds which turn out to be factually wrong, and has indicated that it will take a strict line with those who do not comply with their duties in this respect. In extreme cases, this could even include referral to the regulator, the Bar Standards Board.
“The Bar Council’s new document should help barristers get to grips with these duties to the court. It sets out the practicalities, together with some supplemental suggestions, and includes a checklist to help barristers comply. It also suggests how trial counsel should respond to inquiries. It covers potentially thorny issues such as client confidentiality, legal professional privilege, settling Grounds of Appeal, waivers of privilege, and the CACD’s revised procedures aimed at ensuring that these duties are complied with.
“One of the most important roles of the Ethics Committee is to produce these types of document, which are designed to support barristers in meeting their ethical responsibilities. The committee’s work goes to the heart of why the Bar Council exists – to support the Bar, and to help the Bar to perform its crucial role in the administration of justice.”
Criminal barristers can read and download the document from the Bar Council website: ‘Criminal Appeals – Duties to the Court to Make Enquiries’.
The Bar Council’s Practice & Ethics hub includes other support materials produced by the Ethics Committee, as well as practical guides for barristers and chambers.
(Source: Bar Council)
More than half of SMEs (56%) say they have felt no impact on levels of business from the UK’s decision to leave the EU, according to the Close Brothers Business Barometer, a quarterly survey of UK SME owners and senior management across a range of sectors and regions.
Nationally, 24% of those surveyed said Brexit had had a direct effect on their company, while a further 20% felt that it was too early to tell.
Regionally, businesses in Greater London felt the most affected by Brexit, with 46% answering 'yes' to the question 'have you seen an impact on your business caused by Britain's decision to leave the EU?’; 38% answered 'no'.
Least affected was the North East (no – 71%; yes – 20%) and East Anglia (no – 69%; yes – 12%). Wales was similarly bullish, with 63% answering 'no' and 12% saying 'yes'.
Of those companies who felt that there had been an impact on their business, 40% have seen an improvement in business while 43% have seen a decrease. The remainder (17%) said business had stayed about the same. Engineering firms were the most positive, with 65% of firms surveyed saying the impact of Brexit has been beneficial.
“It’s clear that the majority of UK SMEs are yet to feel any real and tangible effect from Brexit,” said Neil Davies, CEO, Close Brothers Asset Finance. “It’s interesting to note that of those who have been impacted, it’s pretty much split down the middle in terms of those who have been positively and detrimentally affected.
“There is also a real regional difference, with businesses in London feeling the most exposed.”
Spending decisions
More than three quarters (76%) of businesses have not delayed spending or investment decisions because of the EU Referendum.
Regions most likely to answer 'no' to the question ‘have you delayed any spending or investment decisions because of the EU referendum?’, were East Anglia (87%), Wales (90%) and Northern Ireland (90%).
Greater London was the region most likely to delay spending, with 48% or respondents suggesting that Brexit had prevented them from investing.
“It’s interesting to note that 88% of smaller firms – those with a turnover of between £250k to £500k - were the least liable to allow the EU referendum stop them from pushing their business forward,” continued Neil. “Close Brothers has a history of lending through all economic cycles, and experience tells us that these organisations aren’t sitting on large reserves of cash. In order to maintain business levels, they typically don’t have a choice but to spend and invest to ensure a sustainable flow of cash.
“Firms don’t become unviable overnight; we see it as our responsibility to do what we can to ensure our customers, who are in the main SMEs, remain in business and can build towards a profitable future.”
Companies that said they had delayed spending cited the economic uncertainty created by Brexit as the primary reason (62%) for holding back.
Opportunities
Only 18% of business owners are of the view that the decision to leave the EU will lead to fewer opportunities. Tellingly; however, 49% feel they anticipate no change and that it is likely to be ‘business as usual. The remaining 33% are looking forward to better prospects in the future.
“Greater London companies are the most positive region we surveyed,” said Neil. “Fifty three percent expect more opportunities while 48% of engineering firms are equally as positive.”
(Source: Close Brothers Group)
Between the negotiations of the latest US-China and US-EU trade agreements, policies surrounding the repatriation of US jobs, and the country’s affairs in the middle-east, political unrest has the consequence of national uncertainty, leading to more and more hesitation from businesses in regards to legal risks and economic confidence.
The US is today undergoing one of the potentially most nation-changing shifts in its political and cultural history, with the ongoing presidential election, and all the other baskets the US has its hands in.
Below, Bill Waite, CEO of The Risk Advisory Group, a London-based leading, independent global risk management consultancy, attempts to amalgamate the extent of said potential, and gives his expert opinion on the prospective of an ironically ‘isolated’ United States of America.
In terms of legislative reform, what would you say are currently the biggest concerns pertaining to the possibility of greater political and cultural isolation of the US in years to come?
Clearly, the world as it stands is a place of great uncertainty. From the US Presidential election, to Brexit, to a resurgent China developing its outreach policy in Asia and turmoil in the Middle East, there are a number of unanswered questions with regards to the political and cultural situation in the US, and its place in the world more broadly.
Businesses rely on certainty, or at least as close as they can get to it, in order to make key decisions, and that is proving difficult to come by at the moment. In a legislative sense, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) between the US and China, for instance, isn’t being supported by either of the two main US Presidential candidates, making ratification seem increasingly unlikely.
Similarly, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the US and EU looks unlikely to reach any sort of agreement, owing to a lack of enthusiasm on the part of primarily France and Germany. They argue that the US is unwilling to give up any concessions, rendering the bi-lateral aspect of the deal somewhat questionable.
Ultimately, this uncertainty is creating an environment of enhanced risk, subsequently impacting on everyone doing business and their decision-making processes. As a result, we find that businesses are prioritising research into local political environments and stakeholders, in order to gain as much insight as they can into how these occurrences are affecting the individual countries and regions in which they operate.
Given the isolationist policies touted by Donald Trump, what do you think the US can expect if he is elected President? What would be the advantages?
Perhaps the most notable of Donald Trump’s touted policies from an isolationist perspective is his pledge to force other members of NATO to contribute more to the organisation financially, or otherwise risk the US failing to respond to acts of international aggression. It would seem as if Trump is questioning the very heart of NATO in making the statements that he has.
The most concerning thing is that as soon as the US steps back and says “we might not intervene,” it sends a strong and dangerous message to any non-allies in the region. This, coupled with the fact that Vladimir Putin has made a point of testing boundaries in the past, through his advances into Crimea and other countries’ airspaces, does add a sense of peril to the position that Trump adopted.
But in terms of potential advantages, there is certainly an argument that having a US President maintaining an open and frequent dialogue with Vladimir Putin, as Trump has also pledged to, could have a positive effect on international relations. Engagement, even on points that they do not agree on, would ultimately appear to be a more constructive option than complete separation.
On the other hand, what might Hillary Clinton’s policies set forth if she is to be elected? And in this case, what would be the benefits?
Hillary Clinton’s policies with regards to isolationism are probably slightly more nuanced. While she has reversed her position on free trade agreements, coming out in opposition to the ratification of TPP, having originally been a proponent of it, TTIP, and more historically NAFTA, her position towards broader international alliances is less hawkish.
Much of Clinton’s recent opposition to free trade appears to be down to political expediency, but perhaps owing to her time as Secretary of State, and an international profile that generally appears to be more positive than her domestic one, there doesn’t seem to be any evidence that she will adopt the same positions as Trump on issues such as NATO.
However, it must be said that if both Trump and Clinton continue to take a short-term view towards the negotiation and ratification of trade agreements, in terms of what will gain most favour in election time rather than the broader economy, it is likely that the US will ultimately suffer for it in the long-term.
Do you believe either presidential nominee has policies that would prove significantly challenging in A. passing and B. logistically being implemented? Please explain.
On Clinton’s side, perhaps the issue most worth mentioning is the Iranian nuclear deal. While there has been some backlash against the deal in US Congress, she appears to remain committed to it being passed. After several years of supporting the deal in her capacity as Secretary of State, and her successor John Kerry’s continued endorsement of it, she would probably require some relatively compelling evidence to reverse her position at this point.
Ultimately, this would appear to be a sensible position for the US to take. Reengagement with nations with which the US has experienced friction in the past, and the stimulation of trade with those nations, would appear to be a positive in that it creates a sense of mutual interest that can be referenced should relations turn sour for any reason.
To add to that, there are numerous economic benefits to entering the Iranian market, and indeed our client base has expressed significant interest in the country from an investment perspective. As a country of almost 80 million people, with a highly educated population and access to significant resources, both natural and financial, there are clear opportunities for Western businesses.
As for Trump, his well-publicised policy of building a wall along the US-Mexico border is one that bears some scrutiny. The assertion that Mexico will make a substantial capital investment in a wall that is to be built on US soil is a difficult one to comprehend if it is considered critically, and without answering how he is going to make it happen, Trump certainly faces a logical and logistical challenge.
Both candidates are likely to face challenges from likely Congressional obstructionism. The Republican Party is facing a difficult fight to retain control of the Senate in the face of Trump’s unpopularity in several key states, but it appears likely that the House of Representatives will remain in Republican hands. Hence, even if elected President, Clinton will face an uphill battle in terms of enacting her policy agenda. However, the picture could prove worse for Trump if elected, even with a Republican Congress, given the widespread hostility towards him within his own party.
In terms of employment, both parties are under pressure to repatriate employment to US citizens. How do you believe this could affect investment in the US? What else could be impacted?
The repatriation of US jobs is a policy that clearly garners a lot of favour amongst the US public, particularly in the so-called ‘Rust Belt’ that have perhaps felt the effects of globalisation hardest in terms of the outsourcing of jobs overseas.
Ultimately, it is a policy that is unlikely to be delivered within the lifespan of one Presidency. It would take too significant an investment domestically in terms of capital, infrastructure and training in order to be viable within that time span. But American corporates are acutely aware of stakeholder pressure, not only from government, but also from their consumers and the people who live in the communities in which they operate, and so there is likely to be a response at some point.
If we look through the economic cycle, rising costs and wages in the jurisdictions that US jobs were initially outsourced to, the demand for high-quality talent, and corporate social responsibility programmes will mean that jobs will most likely start to come back, but most probably in the longerterm.
Thinking about existing agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that have accelerated the process of outsourcing, their fate appears at this point to be dependent on the success of each US Presidential candidate. Should Trump be elected, he has said that he would walk away from NAFTA, but this is unlikely in the case of Clinton. While her stance on TPP suggests that there will be something of a stop with regards to free trade agreements, at least in the nearterm, there is unlikely to be any withdrawal or walk-back.
With the TTIP coming to an alleged failing conclusion, and the UK opting for a Brexit, what does the future of the US’ relationship with Europe look like, and what are the current economic and legal challenges ahead?
Perhaps the most high-profile recent example on this front is the implementation of the EUUS privacy shield, which lays out certain regulations pertaining to data transfer between the two blocks.
However, while this has been successfully implemented for the moment, it would be a stretch to connect it with TTIP, as TTIP goes so much further in terms of its effect on the day-to-day political and economic environment in Europe. The privacy shield was a complete necessity, because so much business depends on the transfer of the data in question, but there
is so much trade and reciprocal FDI between the EU and US that conversely, the absence of TTIP simply represents ‘business as usual’.
If we are to consider the most recent example of EU-US relations being questioned, that of the $14.5 billion Apple fine that was recently announced by the EU, this is unlikely to have a significant effect either. While it will probably ensure that not many businesses are rushing to Ireland to incorporate, it is not likely to affect US FDI into Europe. Tax is a factor in such decision-making, but it is not the only factor.
How would you say is the US’ retreat from the international stage becoming more and more of a concern in terms of global economic powers?
Isolationism rarely has a positive effect on a country’s economy, and in terms of the free trade agreements that we have discussed that is most likely the case. Free trade generally represents a more positive course of action, economicallyspeaking. If a country retreats from international trade, and attempts to service its own market purely domestically, the more likely we are to see a weakened global economy.
What further challenges does the US face in terms of isolationism, especially on the back of its activity in the Middle East and its relationship with non-American/ Western cultures?
Neither US nor Western policy in the Middle East has appeared to have a positive effect over the last 15 years or so. If we consider interventions in Libya, Syria, Iraq and Egypt, there has never
been a particularly favourable outcome from an attempt to affect regime change, neither via the overwhelming force of the Bush administration, nor the more targeted attempts under Barack Obama.
There needs to be a significant amount of effort from both sides in order to engender any sense of stability in a region that is geographically and strategically at the centre of the world.
Ultimately, isolationism is not the way to go, but neither are the recent interventionist strategies and policies that we have witnessed in the region. A lack of thought around some dramatic foreign policy decision making has created a great deal of instability in a short amount of time. Extremism is a very slender branch of that, but one that has undoubtedly also created a large amount of political, economic and geopolitical instability in the recent past.
Last month one of the largest tech companies in the world, and certainly the biggest in revenue, Apple Inc. was issued with a 13 billion Euro ($14.5 billion) fine from the EU Commission, for unpaid taxes; the largest tax penalty for a US tech company.
This logically set in motion a trail of discussions and actions that will inevitably change the way tax evasion and avoidance is dealt with, in some form. At the end of August, an EU investigation concluded that the Irish government provided Apple with a favourable tax rate that would enable Apple to pay 1% on EU profits in 200, down to 0.005% in 2014.
Both Apple and Ireland are appealing the huge fine, on the grounds of a government tax break that the EU ruling qualifies as ‘state aid’, the issuing of which would be against the EU’s tax rules.
European Union Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager recently admitted that this ordeal would not be the last for American companies that don’t like paying tax.
On this matter, Lawyer Monthly has heard from several experts around the globe, from tax partners to commercial law and corporate law specialists. We’ve also had the pleasure of hearing from Dr. Liza Lovdahl Gormsen, Director of the Competition Law Forum & Senior Research Fellow in Competition Law at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law.
Offering some insight into the variety of perspectives that exist on this ongoing tax affairs, our guests answer the following questions:
• Is this situation shadowed by a political agenda?
• Is this contributing towards the fight against white collar crime?
• What are the facts we are not hearing in the press?
• How important is the repatriation of assets and how should corporate taxes function?
• What are the biggest legislative obstacles ahead in relation to tax avoidance or corporate tax payments?
• Will Apple’s fine incite reform for multi-nationals tax practices and what could the foundations of that ideally look like?
• How do you believe the EU can modernise taxations systems to reflect a 2016 globalised economy?
Rufus Ballaster of Carter Lemon Camerons LLP Solicitors:
The idea that a business can face a retrospective tax charge for having agreed a deal with a country in which it expanded following that deal – a charge possibly imposed decades later – is a massive constitutional problem and one which may well cause problems rippling in current and future activity.
We see some of the world’s largest and most successful corporations under attack recently about the tax they are paying and the business practices they have adopted and this is sure to prevent any sympathy emerging from the media or the population generally.
Other contexts though might produce other reactions. If a whole industry were saved with jobs and areas preserved from mass redundancy because a major company is persuaded to rescue it, the idea that years later the ‘White Knight’ may be told by a supra-national power that it must pay more tax would offend sensibilities. Even worse, it reduces the likelihood of a state in the future managing to attract a similar rescue bid if there is another industry in crisis.
Economists might say this is a good thing – that only if failing businesses go to the wall rather than being rescued can a truly fair international market apply – but it is socially and politically appropriate and economically beneficial for the area in question if jobs can be saved and activity preserved and it is constitutionally important that a deal done by a taxpaying business with a tax raising state is certain, that it cannot be undone years later to the detriment of the business which relied on it.
If what a sovereign state offers to a business in return for it doing certain activity in that state is not something upon which the business can rely in the future, we have a degree of business uncertainty which is potentially catastrophic.
Sheraz Akram – Head of Corporate & Commercial Law at DJM Solicitors
Apple has made it clear that it sees the EU ruling as a purely political move rather than an enforcement of legal position. In my opinion, the decision has an element of political agenda. The effort to crack down on corporate tax avoidance within the EU resonates heavily with EU members and their voters.
The issues around taxation and white-collar crimes should not be confused. There is not a discussion around whether Apple has committed any crime, but whether the organisation needs to pay any additional tax for its operations in Ireland.
The particular contentious issue within this case is whether the tax agreements between Apple and Ireland are contrary to EU rules. Apple has not been reprimanded, or given a penalty to pay; it is simply required to pay tax it may have avoided in the existing arrangements.
The media is reporting this particular tax issue as a scandal and something out of the ordinary. The fact is that this is not the only case of its kind. The Netherlands was ordered to recover large sums of money from Starbucks in 2015, so we could just be looking at the tip of the iceberg.
From a pure common sense point of view it cannot be ethical for Apple to have paid the alleged 0.005% tax in 2014 for its European operations. Once a case such as this has been identified it is essential that action is taken, particularly given the austerity measures that are still being introduced throughout the world.
There needs to be a consistent approach to corporate tax that works to retrieve a fair amount of tax from organisations of all sizes. I believe that if you set tax levels sensibly, you are more likely to get corporates paying the correct amounts, rather than putting complex structures in place to (legally, for most parts) avoid taxes.
The process of establishing how much corporate tax a company should pay is, in itself, extremely complex due to the international nature of large organisations. The flow of monies and inter-company arrangements make it extremely difficult to capture tax in any one jurisdiction. The global community has not, as yet, come close to achieving a solution that can ensure large corporations pay a fair amount in tax.
Stuart Green – Teacher in Taxation at Durham University Business School
An effective corporate tax rate of 1% on profits booked in Ireland might suggest that the hissing coming from Apple is not justifiable. Apple is the world’s most valuable company. Back taxes of £11 billion would be a tail feather or two for the company. Still, one might consider that some of the noise from Silicon Valley is justified. Retroactive changes to tax systems hardly provide for certainty. Many would question their equity, too. Accountants at Apple might be checking their iPhones for a time-travel app.
Will Apple and other US tech-companies flock back across the Atlantic? Probably not. The long-established and close ties between San Francisco and Ireland bring strategic and operational benefits to their European operations. Corporate tax rates in Ireland, even without ‘sweetheart’ deals, compare favourably with those in the US. McDonalds, Amazon and other US companies that use similar tax arrangements in Europe have vast cash reserves.
Still, the Irish government has much to consider. It is proud of its low rates of corporate taxation: only Cyprus and the Baltic states are similarly competitive. To be seen to support the EU ruling might undermine Dublin’s business-friendly reputation. On the other hand, an additional £11 billion in tax revenue would prove useful given the weakness of the Irish economy.
Multinationals lay golden eggs. The Irish government and the EU should be wary of killing this particular corporate goose. Apple is important to Ireland because of the personal taxes paid by its employees, not because of revenues from corporate taxes. The reasons for this imbalance are complex: their resolution is probably beyond the power of the EU. Approaches to both personal and corporate taxation have failed to keep pace with the consequences of globalisation.
That is the challenge for the governments in Europe and elsewhere. An approach to taxation that is rooted in the early twentieth century needs to be reformed to reflect the realities of 2016.
Erika Jupe – Tax Partner at international legal practice Osborne Clarke:
Tax avoidance has become front page news and this has undoubtedly caused it to rise up the political agenda.
The Apple case is just one of a number of cases brought by the EU Commission using EU State Aid rules to challenge tax rulings, which they view as facilitating tax avoidance. Is this an inappropriate attempt by the Commission to extend its influence to the field of direct tax which is supposed to be matter only for National Governments? The view that State Aid rules are not the correct way to challenge tax avoidance is a view that is supported by many, including former EU Commissioner Neelie Kroes who has argued strongly that tax avoidance is better tackled by changing international tax rules. The process of change is already underway as part of the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Project being carried out by the OECD, which is expected to fundamentally overhaul international tax rules. These changes would not affect past tax avoidance, however.
In reality the EU Commission has an ever-increasing role in setting direct tax policy in the EU. Directives seeking to abolish withholding tax on cross border payments or enabling tax-free cross border reorganisations have been welcomed by business and national Governments alike. However more recent proposals such as the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base or “CCCTB” (which aims to harmonise the way in which EU companies determine their taxable profits and allocate then to different countries) have met with much less enthusiasm, in some cases outright opposition. The EU is also seeking to introduce a Tax Avoidance Directive which is intended to set minimum standards throughout the EU and a financial transaction tax.
There have been a number of recent legislative developments which are seeking to make multinational companies more transparent about their business and ownership structures to reduce the risk of tax avoidance. The major development is the adoption of Countryby-Country Reporting (CbCR) rules which require the largest multinational groups to disclose information about the business and financial arrangements to Tax Administrations. The CbCR rules are supposed to level the playing field between taxpayer and tax authority by giving Tax Administrations better access to information, allowing them to assess and challenge tax avoidance risks. The Finance Act allows the Government to introduce rules requiring companies to publicly disclose their CbCR reports – but whether this will be done remains to be seen.
Dr. Liza Lovdahl Gormsen – Director of the Competition Law Forum & Senior Research Fellow in Competition Law at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law:
The European Commission is not imposing a fine on Apple, but has asked Ireland to recover allegedly unpaid taxes. It is important to distinguish between a fine and recovery. The latter is a mechanism, which attempts to restore the situation before the granting of aid, and not equivalent to imposing a fine for anticompetitive behaviour.
An effort to deal with multi-national tax practices is already ongoing – and has been for some time. For example, the OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project Action 5. Because an international effort is already underway, the US Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew has been angered by the Commission’s use of EU State aid law to scrutinize certain practices of tax administrations vis-à-vis advanced pricing agreements in various Member States. He has formally expressed concerns that the Commission’s “enforcement actions… are inconsistent with, and likely to contrary to, the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project.” Given that reform of multi-national tax practices is already underway, what is more likely to happen is a debate before the European Courts of the Commission’s novel interpretation of the concept of selectivity in the State aid rules in relation to national tax arrangements.
There would be significant risks in changing the tax system retroactively. Thus, we should work towards avoid this happening.
There is a delicate balance between the Commission’s State aid powers and Member States fiscal sovereignty in the area of corporate taxation. What is clear is that the European Member States have explicit sovereignty in relation to direct taxation. Thus, the EU has to be careful. The Commission knows this, so in recent years there have been two major responses by the Commission to the perceived problems with Member States offering advanced pricing agreements. One response came when the Commission published a proposal to include an automatic exchange of advance cross-border rulings and advanced pricing agreements in the Council Directive on Administrative Cooperation in the field of taxation.
This Directive has been adopted and comes into force on the 1st January 2017. While it does not provide for public disclosure, although the Commission is currently pressing for public disclosure of the country-by-country tax reports which must be filed with tax authorities by large businesses, the new Directive requires tax rulings to be disclosed to the Commission. Another response by the Commission, and the focus of the discussion here, is the State aid investigations concerning advanced pricing agreements granted to certain multinational corporations by Member States.
I understand that Ireland has decided to appeal the Commission’s decision in Apple. I can only imagine the Irish conundrum following the decision. However, it would be short term thinking to support the Commission’s decision as Ireland would risk jeopardising its long term corporate tax base. A support for the Commission’s decision would create uncertainty, which would be bad for corporate investment.
Partners at UK law firms tend to be younger, on average, the bigger the firm they work for, reveals research by Edward Drummond, a leading management consultancy for law firms.
According to Edward Drummond’s research, 72% of partners at the UK’s Top 10 law firms are aged 50 or under – whilst this is only the case for 60% at UK law firms overall.
It also shows that on average, partners at Top 10 law firms are almost two years younger than the national sector average – 46.7 years compared to 48.4 years.
Edward Drummond says that this is because leading law firms are aggressively meritocratic so top talent tends to be promoted earlier, and older partners also tend to be moved aside more pro-actively to make room for younger partners or as their income generation slows.
Edward Drummond adds that this can present a good opportunity for smaller, mid-tier firms to hire experienced partners who wish to continue their careers rather than retire early.
Gareth Ward, Partner at Edward Drummond says, “The more rapid lifecycle of partners at the biggest law firms can give smaller, mid-tier firms a chance to snap up high profile partners with an impressive track record – but taking on a new partner is a big investment for these firms, so it’s a decision that needs to be taken carefully.”
Edward Drummond warns that smaller firms need to ensure that these partners are likely to add real value beyond the prestige they bring with them. Firms need to be able to identify those candidates who are not only ambitious to build up their new practice but who also have realistic prospects of bringing in enough new business to cover their costs.
It explains that some prospective new partners may overestimate their ability to bring clients with them because large law firms tend to ensure that key client relationships are institutional – rather than personal to individual partners.
Edward Drummond says that this means departing partners can often appear to have a strong standing among clients and contacts but that the strength of those relationships may be over-played and their clients’ willingness to change firm not as high as anticipated.
Edward Drummond adds that, in many cases, partners may also find their hands tied, in terms of marketing, by their exit arrangements with their old firm.
Gareth Ward says, “Hiring partners from top firms can be something of a catch for smaller firms but while many still have a lot to offer, it’s important to establish what they can actually bring to the table in practical terms.”
“Sometimes there can be a disconnect between what the firm thinks they’re hiring, based on what partners believe they can deliver, and the reality.”
“Firms will be attracted by the candidate’s “reputational capital”, but also their “relationship capital” – the clients and contacts they could bring with them.”
“While it may seem that these well-connected individuals will be able to bring new business to the firm from the networks they have established throughout their careers to date, that may not necessarily materialise.”
He adds, “Top firms usually manage their partners’ exits very carefully, ensuring that relationships with existing clients remain institutional rather than personal. Partners’ ability to bring clients with them when they move on can often be highly restricted.”
(Source: Edward Drummond)
There’s a storm brewing, a vortex created by an exponential growth in technology and the sharp decline in the number of IT graduates entering the UK workforce. At one end of the spectrum we’re seeing major advances in fields like artificial intelligence, and at the other a quarter of the population still don’t have the skills to do more than consume digital products. Medium sized companies in the UK have identified the IT skills gap amongst their top 3 risks for the next decade with fears amplified in the wake of the Brexit vote.
As a parallel stream the trend toward a "gig economy" is growing; a recent study predicted that by 2020 up to 35 percent of workers could be independent contractors. Websites like Upwork and Freelancer have quite literally changed the way companies recruit and fill their IT skills gap, with specialist technology focused sites like The IT Project Board enabling searches based on any combination of IT category, skill, accreditation, certification, manufacturer and industry expertise to find the right person for your role.
Robert Chambers, CEO of TheITProjectboard.com says "Finding the right talent is expensive, time-consuming and unnecessarily arduous. Businesses must be prepared to go further afield to find the talent they need, modern platforms are designed to enable this at a few clicks; employers can find and invite talent to their projects directly, with no geographical barriers so saving both time and money." In addition these sites also provide unbiased ratings of completed projects, allowing businesses to make hiring decisions based on real outcomes not just instinct; eliminating the need to rely on the traditional gut feeling.
Perhaps these new virtual marketplaces will be the answer to the IT skills gap epidemic, "work" is after all no longer (just) a physical space or series of mechanical tasks as it’s a set of skills or aptitudes that we sell at the best price. These sites also allow companies to intelligently build Virtual Teams from multiple sources from all over the planet. The collaboration enables step changes in efficiency, time and cost. You can get things done in a much more flexible, dynamic, and distributed way, and visibility is increased as your entire team regardless of location or time zone can view a single dashboard.
The IT Project Board’s CEO goes on to say "today’s workforce is fragmented; over a third of the workforce did some kind of freelance work over the past year. Nearly four out of five employers in establishments of all sizes and industries use some form of non-traditional staffing. Online marketplaces are the most flexible way to recruit the multiple types of resources you need to complete a project. The right people can quickly get involved on a project in a matter of a few clicks, as opposed to the normal 30 day recruitment cycle.”
Millennials want transparency, flexibility and the ability to work for multiple employers simultaneously if they chose, anywhere they choose. And businesses win by combining a flexible remote workforce with traditional workforce to maintain stability, morale and cost controls. Is it any wonder then that these collaboration websites are flourishing? The question is; will they do enough to solve the epidemic.
(Source: The IT Project Board.com)
ONS Migration Statistics Quarterly report for the period January 2016 to March 2016 showed that net migration to the UK has not changed significantly, at 327,000. The figure for EU-only net migration is 180,000. These figures are to be expected and it is strong evidence of the growing fear among EU citizens, leading up to the EU referendum, that the UK door could close on them soon - a fear that still remains.
Such concern is being felt by organisations as well as individuals. During the same period as the ONS migration figures - January 2016 to March 2016 - our firm saw a three-fold increase in EU citizens and UK organisations seeking Permanent Residency and British Nationality status for themselves and their staff as the UK headed towards an EU vote.
The Government's plans to seek curbs on free movement rules is a worrying one for many, as industries like engineering, IT, construction, hospitality, rely heavily on skills from outside the UK. The free movement rules currently give EU nationals the right to live and work in other member states. For particular sectors and skills, the Government will have to seriously consider free movement to some extent, in exchange for diminished access to the EU’s Single Market, or face the prospect of these industries in the UK, declining or relocating.
Even if the Government triggered Article 50 tomorrow and stated an effective "cut-off date" for when EU citizens will be granted a right to stay in the UK, this growing rise in EU citizens entering the UK will continue, along with applications for Permanent Residency and British Nationality as it could take years for any deals and changes to the immigration rules to be refined and implemented.
Nonetheless, with the uncertainty set to continue, we're advising EU citizens currently living and working in the UK and who are classified as a 'qualified persons' (i.e. you’re working, studying, self-employed, self-sufficient or looking for work) to apply for a registration certificate to prove their right to live or to work in the UK. If you're a 'qualified person' having been in the UK for at least five years (or three if you are the spouse of a British citizen), then you can also apply for permanent residency and then, 12 months after, British Nationality. Applications can take up to six months to be decided. With the Home Affairs Committee warning of possible fresh delays and backlogs in the immigration system as more people enter the UK and no date as yet set on changes to the immigration rules, we're advising organisations with EU workers and citizens themselves, not to delay their applications.
Migrate UK is a law firm specialising solely in immigration law for organisations and individuals. Jonathan Beech has over 20 years' experience in the immigration sector. Prior to setting up Migrate UK in 2004, he gained extensive experience working and consulting in UK immigration for the UK Border Agency and two of the ‘Big Four’ global advisory firms, Ernst & Young and KPMG.
(Source: Jonathan Beech, Managing Director of Migrate UK)
Daily we are seeing new businesses strategies and models emerging around the globe; some of these are now contributing to what we are calling a GIG economy. This is the overall businesses environment in which organizations and companies outsource labour, via direct or third party contracting for shortterm independent employment. A recent study conducted by Intuit predicted that by 2020, 40% of US workers would be independent workers, and looking at the growth of companies such as Uber, AirBnB and TaskRabbit, we can expect a further expansion of the GIG economy throughout Europe and Asia in no time.
However, this type of business has left space for much controversy and issues relating to employment and contracts, evidenced by some of the recent lawsuits brought towards Uber, from contracted employees who wished to have similar benefits as a full-time employee. Clearly, there are loopholes and voids that need filling in this market, and legislative development can take some time, relying mostly on judicial precedents.
Lawyer Monthly wanted to hear your thoughts on this matter, and set out to hear from various professionals worldwide on what the legal implications, expectancies and conclusions might be in relation to the GUG economy; here’s what they had to say.
Jonathan Maude, Partner at Vedder Price
The large amount of money in the recent Uber settlement has grabbed headlines. However, it comes as an anti-climax and disappointment to many who have been waiting for the Court’s decision and hoping it would provide some much needed guidance on the status of those working and serving in the fast changing GIG economy, and the uncertain employment landscape it is ushering in. The ever growing digital on-demand or GIG economy relies on contractors working “gigs” or doing piecework - rather than on paying employees through the regular payroll. Whatever the benefits, those individuals who work “gigs” in this way lose a raft of social and employment protection they would enjoy as employees. It was this loss of status and protection which the Uber drivers challenged, claiming that they should be classified as employees.
This case therefore challenged the very basis of Uber’s business model. A definitive answer from the Court as to the drivers’ status would have been welcome, and would have provided some certainty and guidance not only to the individuals but also to the new and growing wave of on-demand businesses that operate on a similar model to Uber.
The settlement means that, for the moment, it looks as though we will have to do without definitive guidance from the Court, assuming the settlement is approved. However, this looks set to be a temporary stay only. This case has raised the consciousness of these issues - partly owing to the fact that Uber is becoming a household name and because of the size of the settlement - and on the real status of individual “gig” workers. We expect that many will share our view (looking at the case from the outside) that, had the case proceeded (and under English law), the drivers would have been said to be employees. This is primarily because of the level of control exerted by Uber and the overall brand management. To our mind, the size of the settlement recognises this risk, and looks likely to give impetus to further similar challenges. Businesses operating on the contractor model will be very aware of this, and the potential huge ramifications. They will be aware too of the need to prepare for and contingency plan for such challenges, or to change their relationship with their contractors.
While this case and others like it are shining the spotlight on the lack of protection and rights given to the new and growing army of workers working under these business models, it is too early to say precisely how this lack of protection will be addressed. One thing that does seem certain, however, is that this is an area where we can expect to see developments in further cases, law and policy, both in the UK and globally.
Paul Kelly, Employment Lawyer and Partner at Black Solicitors LLP
The problem with ‘the GIG Economy’ is that the law has been slow to catch up. A business model which shuns the traditional idea of employment in favour of a person working for themselves - taking on individual “gigs” - is increasingly common in almost every aspect of our lives. Whilst the Gig Economy can be viewed as having empowered those who want to work for themselves, in the post-recession landscape we find that more and more people are turning to - or being forced into - this type of work because they simply cannot find traditional employment. And in the process, the dividing line between employment and self-employment has become blurred.
Perhaps the most high-profile recent example of the blurring of the employment/self-employment distinction concerns the taxi app, Uber. Uber has been taken to the Employment Tribunal by some of its drivers who claim, amongst other things, that because their work for Uber is their only source of income, they should be treated as employees. Delivery firm Hermes has also faced similar criticism. Many of their self-employed delivery drivers earn less than the minimum wage due to the rates Hermes pays – though this does not appear to have dissuaded Amazon who are said to be considering adopting a self-employed approach for some of their deliveries. Most recently the courier firm, Deliveroo, has hit the headlines by allegedly requiring couriers to sign contracts which not only confirm that they are selfemployed, but also provide that they will pay Deliveroo’s legal fees if they assert to the contrary in the Employment Tribunal.
The GIG Economy claims many advantages for those businesses that adopt the model. It can give companies like Uber and Hermes national coverage without the complication and cost of setting up regional operations. It also provides them with a flexible workforce that operates 24 hours a day. Most importantly, companies subscribe to this model because it involves lower overheads – the business has fewer employees and so is able to reduce the financial and administrative burden which accompanies things like paid sickness absence, disciplinary and grievances hearings, sick-pay, maternity, paternity and parental rights, and pension auto-enrolment.
The advantages for individuals – beyond the obvious attraction of flexibility – are not so clear to see. But two years ago when the CIPD surveyed those working on zero hours contracts they found that 65% of them were happy with their work-life balance, compared with 58% of their full-time colleagues – so any work model which has a lower level of commitment for the individual seems to be popular.
The GIG Economy is said to be a natural evolution of our working practices and a by-product of a ‘Millennial’ generation that values work-life balance and flexibility over income and status. However, further regulation is needed to clarify the employment status of ‘Gig’ workers. The model is open to abuse by unscrupulous employers who would seek to exploit those with little bargaining power by cajoling them into performing all the functions of an employee but without giving them the associated rights and benefits.
The GIG Economy is not going to go away. As we become more and more connected and dependent on technology, traditional companies need to re-examine their business models. This new model may or may not work for them. But better to consider (and perhaps discount) the model, than find that it has been successfully adopted by a competitor
Emma O’Leary, Employment Law Consultant at ELAS
The main legal consideration businesses should be making in regards to the GIG economy would be employment status. This is the big question when it comes to people working in the GIG economy – are they really self-employed or should be they be considered workers? There are various tests which can be applied depending on the circumstances.
Rulings in the recent Uber employment tribunal case as well as the cycle courier cases could be momentous and have a phenomenal effect on GIG economy business. They could even lead such companies to consider revamping their whole business model. Unions are calling for more regulation on these type of businesses and it may be that the judgements give some definitive guidance on employment status once and for all. The UK Government seems to be avoiding the issues in terms of regulation and, given the current political climate, it’s even less likely that they will get involved. Addressing the employment status issue could be expensive for employers and something this Conservative government is unlikely to want to tackle.
We can expect to see many more tribunal cases from the ‘workers’ which could then adversely affect the GIG economy – it’s already happening in the US as well as here in the UK. If the judgements in these cases don’t go the employers’ way then financially it could close them down. The flood gates will open, the workers will receive payouts for underpaid wages and holidays and there could be a knock on effect on the financial stability of the companies involved. This would ultimately affect their place in the competitive marketplace if these payouts result in a hike in prices for the consumer.
Very little is to be expected in terms of regulatory development on existing companies in this realm – the government won’t want to deal with it. It’s too difficult for them to resolve and they won’t want to give credence to the worker’s rights. The judgements in the recent cases will shed some light, we would hope, but they won’t technically be binding decisions unless and until one of the parties appears to the Employment Appeals Tribunal – only that court and above can create a legally binding precedent. Meanwhile, companies which operate on this GIG economy, or indeed any company that tends to engage ‘self-employed’ operatives, may want to take advice on how safe their employment status presumptions are and tighten them up if necessary.
Matt Walters SVP Operations for Capital GES
The staffing industry, in the legal sector and elsewhere, is in a constant state of evolution, where any semblance of a traditional model of recruitment now seems shortlived at best. Over recent years the ubiquity of reliable technology and connectivity, paired with a generation of digital natives with an expectation of instant availability, have led to a new world of work: the gig economy.
In recent years the concept of ‘gig’ work has gathered considerable pace as businesses come to fully embrace the notion of a flexible workforce. The GIG economy is a marketplace in which businesses engage with workers for short-term engagements, or gigs. The significance of this emerging economy is enormous, as workers, clients and staffing companies realise that vital experience, contacts and perspective can be gained without resorting to traditional hiring practices.
As an increasing number of workers are choosing to work ‘gigs’ rather than entering into full-time employment, it is critical that businesses fully understand the landscape of the GIG economy and the implications of engaging with these workers. Firstly, it is important to address the unparalleled opportunities that can arise from the gig economy. ‘Gigs’ allow businesses to access a wide talent pool of flexible workers.
This heightened level of flexibility and access to talented workers is one of the fundamental reasons for so many businesses to engage with ‘gig’ workers. The CEO of on-demand talent marketplace MBA&Company summarised the trend well, stating: “You can now get whoever you want, whenever you want, exactly how you want it.”
Indeed, one of the most pressing questions surrounding ‘gigs’ is that of worker misclassification or deemed employment. If a worker is generating a majority of their income from an engagement with a company, should that company not be deemed to be socially responsible for that worker? In other words, is the worker not just, in effect, an employee? This and other questions are inevitable in any major shift in working practices, and will present significant challenges and opportunities to companies and regulators over the coming months and years.
The GIG economy will change the staffing landscape, and we can expect that rules and regulations will be introduced to deliver clarity. Companies such as Uber are blazing a trail in this area by pushing countries and local authorities to clearly define when a user of a sharing app becomes an employee of the company. This precedent being set by the sharing economy (a subset in its own right of the gig economy) will allow companies in the wider gig economy to thrive in comparative safety.
The GIG economy is here to stay, and as the trend continues to expand it is critical that businesses consider how they engage with their gig workers. Staying informed and understanding the law is key to making the most of this new era of both flexible and talented gig workers.
Christopher Tutton, A Partner at Constantine Law
The GIG economy is undermining and redefining traditional legal concepts, particularly in relation to what it means to be an employee. The GIG economy relies on self-employed contractors to provide a flexible labour supply at much lower cost. This in turn creates significant cost savings for consumers.
Moving away from traditional employment models however, is not without risk. Operating a contingent labour supply brings its own challenges, such as how to deliver the same standard of service with a reduced level of control over the ‘workforce’. GIG economy companies need to put systems in place to ensure customer service and quality control are not compromised, or they will struggle to grow their brand.
Another potential risk is in relation to health and safety: direct employment arrangements have more regulation on working time limits and health and safety requirements. Health and safety standards could be eroded unless there is careful thought and adequate resources given to the issue.
Companies operating in the GIG economy also need to be mindful of the fact that whilst their business model may be popular with consumers, public attitudes towards the sector are divided. Companies can be viewed as controversial due to concerns about worker’s rights and unfair competition. Reputation management should be a key consideration for businesses in the sector.
We have seen litigation in California which saw Uber drivers being found to be employees. There is currently litigation in the UK employment tribunals against Uber in which drivers are claiming to benefit from a myriad of employment rights such as holiday and sick pay).
As with many changes arising from technological advances and changes in attitudes to work, the law has not been able to keep apace.
I would anticipate we see an attempt by unions and employee groups to put the brakes on the GIG economy by increasing regulation and lobbying for changes to the law to protect key employment rights. These include in particular the right to form trade unions, not be unfairly dismissed and to receive holiday and sick pay.
Whilst the sector may face further regulation, businesses should be looking at ways they can harness the power of the GIG economy, as, whatever the pros and cons of the model, it is here to stay. Businesses should seek to find a sustainable balance towards working conditions, quality control and health and safety whilst continuing to meet consumer demand for lower costs and flexibility.
Ian Dawson Head of Employment Law at Shulmans LLP
The suggestion that by 2020, 40% of people in the US may find themselves in a situation whereby they are self-employed under the GIG economy model, of course throws up questions in the UK about reference to employment security and fair play.
On the one hand, there are employment protections such as unfair dismissal, which do not necessarily apply when contracting an individual on a flexible and self-employed basis. The employee becomes a self-employed entity, allowing them to seek other revenue streams, removing almost all requirements of a business in reference to minimum benefits. Although it may seem as though businesses have the advantage here, this distribution of power will be unsustainable as the economy matures.
Inevitably, a time will come whereby the biggest companies in this economy, such as AirBnB and Uber, will be challenged by competitors of an equal footing, allowing the self-employed individuals to barter their own terms to seek the most profitable and convenient agreements. Any existing companies of this model would be wise to foster an environment of fairness at this early growth stage, in order to create a sense of community and loyalty. This should then help prevent a situation whereby the majority of its revenue earners ‘jump ship’ to pastures new, leaving the business unable to fulfil its services to the paying public and ultimately, to a potential demise.
One way to alleviate this threat could be to operate over two platforms; one in its current format and another with a traditional bank of full-time employees. With an ever-shifting market and with many businesses operating on a global scale, this will help employers meet the need for flexibility which the market requires.
It is evident that changes in legislation will be required to meet these fast-paced economic developments. However, the fundamental acknowledgement of treating employees fairly, whether actually employed or contracted, should be the best course of action - should they wish to grow and sustain their market share in the future.
Rhiannon Cambrook-Woods Managing Director, Zest Recruitment & Consultancy LLP
The GIG economy may still be in its infancy, but figures from the Recruitment & Employment Confederation predict that by 2025 the GIG economy will add £45 billion to the UK’s GDP and create work for 766,000 people.
Driving this are two key groups: millennials looking to take greater control over their careers, and those with a few more years under their belts who want more flexibility and variety in the work they are doing, opting instead to combine their main career with a number of often-diverse roles.
As the demand for this way of working increases, so too will the value legal employers place on it. But they need to be ready for it, its implications and the challenges that will need to be faced:
First, we are likely to see a change in work patterns. Law firms will be required to become more agile and turn many of their preconceptions of how employees work on their heads. Indeed, the use of temporary workers has by and large been to plug short-term gaps in the workforce. But this is likely to change, as workers at both ends of the skills spectrum will increasingly expect to be able to work flexibly. As it stands, law firms overall are less geared for such flexibility.
Second, increases in the number of people working flexibly could pose a perceived threat to those who work full time, or have less experience. This could see an increase in silo specialists who will be recycled from interim post to interim post. The effect of this could see an exclusion of other candidates, which in turn could see the talent pool become much smaller; thereby, creating an ‘us and them’ corporate culture.
A third major challenge facing law firms will be the way they manage quality control. As more people opt to become ‘gig workers’, firms need to ensure that contracts are allocated to the best person for the job, not the one who offered the cheapest rate.
Fourth, is the impact on the law firm’s brand. Managing a team of permanent and flexible workers will be a challenge, but so too is the ability to ensure continuity of service throughout the customer journey.
Fifth, with the downward pressure on pricing showing no signs of abating, the GIG economy is a good fit for the legal sector, as those with the skills that are needed can be drafted in ‘on demand’ and can quickly get to work to fulfil a specific role, within a specific timeframe.
Then there is the question of pay. Law firms will need to clarify the legal and tax status of gig workers to ensure they receive the same protections (and benefits) as other self-employed workers. One of the key challenges will be in the support afforded to gig workers, such as the provision of professional training.
The GIG economy may pose a number of challenges for legal firms, but it presents even more opportunities. As the firm’s needs change, having a flexible and external workforce that can be quickly scaled up or down could prove invaluable for practitioners under increasing pressure to reduce their costs while maintaining a high standard of service to their clients.
Unsafe and unsanitary working conditions are putting the health of millions of British workers in serious danger, according to a new report* by Hayward Baker.
Researchers carried out an in-depth study** into the conditions of Britain’s offices, shops, factories, warehouses and building sites - and discovered a staggering 69% of British workers – 21 million of them - claim their workplace to be a health hazard.
The study revealed 35% of working Brits have picked up an illness from their place of work - with 18% claiming to have been struck down with food poisoning or caught a stomach bug because of dirty conditions.
35% of working Brits have picked up an illness from their place of work - with 18% claiming to have been struck down with food poisoning or caught a stomach bug because of dirty conditions.
A further 39% have even suffered an injury at work - with two in ten (20%) Brits having been to hospital due to a work-related illness or injury.
Complaints to emerge from the study regarding the workplace include greasy and slippery floors (16%), unhygienic work colleagues (13%), unsanitary toilet facilities (11%) - and cluttered floors (10%).
Dirty kitchens also pose a problem for 10 % of the nation’s workforce – as do ripped carpets (9%), broken chairs (8%) and unsafe wiring (6%).
Almost half (46%) of those polled have complained to their bosses about the state of their place of work, with a further 21% saying their manager did nothing to rectify the situation.
The research was commissioned by Personal Injury Solicitors Hayward Baker following the launch of its new interactive injury compensation calculator, which provides workers with an estimate of how much compensation they would be entitled to following an accident or injury.
A spokesperson for Hayward Baker, said: “Going to work could seriously damage your health if managers don’t take working conditions seriously enough.
“Our free to injury compensation calculator gives British workers easy access to information which can really help them decide if they have a valid claim against their company.”
According to the research, just 16% of British workers sought legal advice after suffering an injury, with the average claim for compensation being £24,931.
29% of all accidents at work were considered ‘moderate’ injuries - such as broken bones or fractures - and serious enough for workers to make a claim against their employer.
Other common workplace injuries are cuts (27%) and strained backs (20%).
The more ‘severe’ accidents that followed an injury at work include dislocations (9%) and a further 6% had lost a limb or body part as result of their injury.
21% say they have had an accident at work and it wasn’t their fault while a further 18% say they have had an accident and it was their fault.
*Independent research commissioned by Hayward Baker and conducted by Ginger Research in August 2016
**1019 British employees took part in the online survey.
(Source: Hayward Baker)
