-
Francia
Francia – Licenziamento di un amministratore di una società per azioni semplificata: lo statuto ha priorità
19 Dicembre 2022
- Diritto societario
- Lavoro
- Occupazione
A quali condizioni si può revocare l’incarico all’amministratore di una società in Francia?
Dipende dalla forma della società stessa.
Prendiamo le forme più comuni di società commerciali.
L’amministratore di una società a responsabilità limitata può essere revocato solo per giusta causa, cioè per negligenza, o se la revoca è necessaria per proteggere gli interessi della società.
In una società per azioni ordinaria i membri del consiglio di amministrazione e il presidente del consiglio di amministrazione possono essere revocati “ad nutum”, cioè in qualsiasi momento e senza dover fornire alcuna motivazione. Questa regola non può essere derogata. L’amministratore delegato, invece, può essere revocato solo per giusta causa.
Nelle società per azioni semplificate (“SAS”) è lo statuto a determinare le condizioni di gestione della società e, in particolare, le condizioni per la revoca dell’amministratore. Le SAS sono una forma societaria creata nel 1994, e rappresentano attualmente la forma societaria di maggior successo in Francia, al punto che una società di nuova costituzione su due è una SAS.
In questo tipo di società gli amministratori sono in linea di principio revocabili “ad nutum”, ma lo statuto può derogare a questa regola e prevedere che l’amministratore possa essere revocato solo per giusta causa.
Riguardo ai limiti della libertà statutaria, una recente decisione della Corte di Cassazione francese, la più alta corte giudiziaria francese, è di particolare interesse.
Infatti, la sentenza della Corte di Cassazione del 12 ottobre 2022 (n. 21-15.382) ha stabilito il principio per cui gli atti extra-statutari possono integrare lo statuto, ma non possono derogarvi.
Nel caso oggetto della decisione, lo statuto di una SAS prevedeva che l’amministratore delegato potesse essere licenziato in qualsiasi momento senza che fosse necessario alcun motivo, per decisione dei soci o del socio unico, e che il licenziamento dell’amministratore delegato non desse diritto ad alcun risarcimento.
L’amministratore delegato era stato nominato dall’azionista unico. Lo stesso giorno, l’azionista unico aveva inviato una lettera all’amministratore delegato in cui dichiarava che, in caso di revoca senza giusta causa, avrebbe ricevuto una somma forfettaria pari a sei mesi di retribuzione.
Qualche anno dopo, l’azienda aveva effettivamente revocato l’amministratore delegato, che aveva pertanto chiesto il pagamento dellasomma forfettaria concordata. Quando l’azienda si era rifiutata di pagarlo, l’ex amministratore delegato aveva fatto causa per ottenere il pagamento dell’indennità.
La Corte d’Appello e poi la Corte di Cassazione hanno dato ragione alla società: l’ex amministratore non aveva diritto all’indennità in quanto, per la Corte di Cassazione, è lo statuto a stabilire i termini di revoca dell’amministratore delegato ed è lo statuto a prevalere su ogni patto aggiunto. Sebbene atti extra-statutari possano integrare lo statuto, non possono derogarvi. Questo vale anche se l’atto extrastatutario proviene dall’unico socio, o se tutti i soci sono d’accordo.
Il nostro consiglio
E’ importante analizzare con attenzione lo statuto e gli atti extra-statutari come i patti parasociali o gli accordi con gli amministratori per evitare i rischi in caso di revoca di un amministratore nelle società per azioni semplificate.
Ogni datore di lavoro dovrebbe gestire il rischio di essere coinvolto in azioni legali promosse dai propri dipendenti. Molte imprese credono di trattare bene i dipendenti e che gli stessi siano felici. Di conseguenza, ritengono di non essere a rischio di controversie. Nel mio lavoro, però, mi capita spesso di vedere i rapporti di lavoro inacidirsi e i dipendenti sorprendere la direzione rivolgendosi ad un avvocato.
I datori di lavoro dovrebbero gestire questo rischio in modo proattivo, invece di sperare che le cause legali non arrivino mai. Difendere un’azienda dalle cause intentate da un attuale o ex dipendente richiede molto tempo e può essere molto costoso. Può anche essere incredibilmente frustrante vedere un dipendente di cui l’azienda si fidava fare accuse false e dannose. Tuttavia, i datori di lavoro possono adottare alcune misure preventive per ridurre l’impatto di un’azione legale: di seguito ne illustro otto.
In primo luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero prendere in considerazione l’acquisto di un’assicurazione che copra le richieste di risarcimento da parte dei dipendenti. Negli Stati Uniti, per esempio, questa assicurazione è chiamata “assicurazione per la responsabilità civile per le pratiche lavorative” (“EPLI”). Questo tipo di polizze assicurative permette di pagare un avvocato per difendere l’impresa in caso di azioni legali, e consente anche di coprire l’importo richiesto dal dipendente o riconosciutogli dal tribunale. Sebbene l’assicurazione abbia un costo, molte aziende preferiscono pagare premi regolari e prevedibili piuttosto che dover affrontare spese legali improvvise, elevate e imprevedibili ed eventuali risarcimenti ai dipendenti.
In secondo luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero implementare e far rispettare le politiche sulle molestie sessuali. Politiche come queste scoraggiano il tipo di comportamento che può esporre l’azienda a responsabilità, ma in molte giurisdizioni possono anche costituire una difesa per l’impresa, nel caso in cui un dipendente la citi in giudizio per aver permesso le molestie.
In terzo luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero esaminare seriamente le disparità di retribuzione e di ruolo. Se i dipendenti più pagati di un’azienda fossero in gran parte uomini e quelli meno pagati fossero in gran parte donne, un dipendente potrebbe sostenere di essere vittima di discriminazione sessuale. Allo stesso modo, se i dirigenti fossero in gran parte bianchi, mentre gli operai in gran parte persone di colore, un dipendente potrebbe sostenere di essere vittima di discriminazione razziale in azienda. Piuttosto che affrontare questi problemi, un’impresa dovrebbe verificare se queste disparità esistano o meno nel proprio ambiente di lavoro e, in caso affermativo, affrontarle.
In quarto luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero valutare se vogliono che le controversie di lavoro siano sottoposte ad arbitrato anziché aa un tribunale. I datori di lavoro possono determinare questo aspetto inserendo una clausola arbitrale nelle proposte di assunzione che inviano ai dipendenti al momento dell’assunzione. L’arbitrato presenta alcuni vantaggi: tende ad essere più rapido, è privato, ha la reputazione di essere un foro amichevole per i datori di lavoro e tende a costare meno. Ma ha anche alcuni svantaggi: non permette di fare appello nel merito della controversia e può costare più di una causa giudiziaria, a seconda del tipo di caso.
In quinto luogo, ogni volta che un dipendente riveli di avere un problema di salute, l’azienda dovrebbe immediatamente valutare come affrontarlo. Molti datori di lavoro possono ignorare la comunicazione di un problema di salute se non sembra importante per il lavoro del dipendente. Tuttavia, se in seguito il dipendente ritenesse di essere stato penalizzato a causa del problema di salute, potrebbe agire in giudizio per discriminazione. Prima che ciò accada, il datore di lavoro dovrebbe collaborare con il dipendente per assicurarsi che il problema di salute non ostacoli le prestazioni lavorative.
In sesto luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero assicurarsi di prendere decisioni coerenti. Se un datore di lavoro permettesse a un dipendente di lavorare da casa, altri dipendenti potrebbero volere lo stesso trattamento. E se un datore di lavoro licenziasse un dipendente, questi potrebbe chiedersi perché un altro non abbia avuto la stessa sorte. I datori di lavoro possono ridurre il rischio di una causa legale stabilendo delle politiche precise e rispettandole.
In settimo luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero consultare spesso un avvocato di fiducia qualora insorgano problemi di lavoro. Spendere qualche centinaio di dollari per parlare con un avvocato per un’ora prima di licenziare un dipendente o prima di rispondere ad un reclamo potrebbe aiutare un datore di lavoro a evitare una causa che potrebbe costare decine o addirittura centinaia di migliaia di dollari.
Infine, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero prendere in considerazione la possibilità di accordarsi per risolvere le controversie con i dipendenti, anche se sono prive di merito. Nessuna impresa vorrebbe che un dipendente si approfittasse di lei, ma le cause legali sono spesso più costose e fastidiose del costo di un accordo. Spendere molto denaro per la difesa, anche in caso di successo, può essere meno economico di scendere a compromessi e pagare al dipendente una frazione di quanto richiesto.
Summary – While China’s economy bore the brunt of the initial economic impact, the COVID-19 outbreak is bringing both direct and indirect complications for economies around the world. With China’s key role in the supply chain and manufacturing, in combination with lockdowns restricting movement, trade and business – fiscal authorities are implementing new measures to protect and stimulate their respective economies.
The Australian Government has announced a series of new regulatory, legislative and administrative changes that strengthen the country’s position moving through the crisis. The International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development forecast Australia’s growth outpacing many comparable countries, including France, Canada, Japan, Germany, and the UK – all without endangering Australia’s debt sustainability.
Australia’s Response
The Australian Federal Government has, in a series of announcements, revealed a consolidated package of $320 billion AUD or $200 billion USD[1] support – equivalent to 16.4% of the country’s nominal GDP. They have made a clear stance that Australia is prepared to protect its national interest and respond to the broad and prolonged impact of the outbreak.
The stimulus measures can be considered in three separate categories, each with an intended purpose:
- support businesses;
- support the flow of credit; and
- support individuals and households.
The measures come with consideration of varying factors, including helping with the management of short-term cash flow, assist severely affected communities and regions, to prop up individuals and households dealing with sudden loss of employment, maintaining employees’ connections with business, and to ensure the continued flow of credit.
The Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Act 2020 and Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus (Measures No. 2) were passed by parliament on 8 April 2020. More legislation is expected to come as Australian authorities continue to study the broader prolonged impacts of COVID-19.
State and local governments within Australia have also announced a wide range of measures in addition to those announced by the Federal Government.
[1] Based on AUD-USD exchange rate 21 April 2020
Support for Businesses
JobKeeper Subsidy
The Australian government has committed $130 billion in ongoing support to business through the JobKeeper subsidy. The payment is available to businesses that are suffering a reduction in turnover to keep Australians employed during the outbreak. The JobKeeper subsidy is a gross fortnightly payment of $1,500 for each eligible employee for a 6-month period. The full $1,500 payment is to be paid to each eligible employee, either as a partial subsidy if their wage is greater than $1,500, or as a full subsidy if their wage was previously less than $1,500. The gross payment will be taxed at normal rates, although employers are not obliged to make additional superannuation contributions.
The scheme includes sole traders as well as businesses and not-for-profits (NFP).
Boosting Cash Flow for Employers
Small and medium businesses, as well as NFP are eligible for cashflow boosts to further assist in retaining employees. Tax-free cash flow boosts of $20,000 to $100,000 will be delivered to eligible businesses and organisations with aggregated annual turnover under $50 million. The Government has specifically acknowledged the increasing demand for NFP services during this crisis.
In a series of two payments, each payment will be equivalent to the business’ withheld salary and wages, with a minimum of $10,000 and maximum of $50,000. The first cashflow boost is set to be available between March and July 2020; the second boost will be made to businesses who received the first and will be of an equal sum, to be paid between June to September 2020. By splitting the support into two equal payments, the intention is to provide continued cash flow support over a longer period – increasing confidence and assisting businesses to maintain their operations.
Temporary Relief for Financially Distressed Businesses
Recognising the need for a safety net to allow businesses to resume operation post-crisis, this measure provides legislative support to financially distressed businesses. The temporary changes include reducing thresholds for creditors to issue statutory demands and initiate bankruptcy proceedings, increasing time available to respond to statutory demands, relieving directors from personal liability for trading while insolvent, and providing flexibility in the Corporations Act 2001 when dealing with unforeseen circumstances stemming from the COVID-19 crisis.
The Australian Taxation Office is willing to tailor solutions for directors and owners currently suffering. These may include reductions in payments or deferrals and withholding enforcement actions.
Changes to Asset Write-Off and Depreciation Deductions
The threshold for instant asset write-off is increased from $30,000 to $150,000 and access is expanded to businesses with aggregated annual turnover less than $500 million (previously $50 million) until the end of the 2019-20 financial year (i.e. 30 June 2020).
Up until the end of the 2020-21 financial years, depreciation deductions are accelerated for businesses under the same $500 million threshold. Upon installation of assets, 50% can be deduced with existing depreciation deduction rates to the balance. This measure is considered an investment incentive for businesses.
Supporting Apprentices and Trainees
Eligible employers may have 50% of an apprentice’s or trainee’s wage subsidised between 1 January 2020 and 30 September 2020. When businesses are unable to retain their apprentice or trainee, the subsidy can be provided to a new employer. As a part of this program, Australia’s National Apprentice Employment Network will provide further support in coordinating re-employment of workers affected by the COVID-19 crisis.
Support for Affected Regions and Industries
$1 billion of stimulus funds is reserved to support regions that are most impacted by the COVID-19 crisis. The purpose is to provide assistance during both the outbreak and the recovery. Further, the Australian airline industry is receiving tax and fee relief, with an estimate value of $715 million.
Support Flow of Credit
Immediate Cash Flow Needs for SMEs
The Government is providing guarantees of 50% for SME lenders to encourage new short-term unsecured loans for SMEs. By increasing lender’s willingness to provide credit, Australian businesses will be in a better position to secure loans and increase their cash flow.
Quick and efficient access to credit for small business
Small businesses will have more and faster access to credit as an exemption is provided to ‘responsible lending’ requirements.
Reserve Bank of Australia Measures to Support Credit Flow
The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) has made funding available for banks at a fixed interest rate of 0.25%. This measure will reinforce a lower cash rate, helping to reduce interest rates for borrowers. The RBA funding is incentivised to banks who expand their business lending, especially for new loans to SMEs. To complement the interest rate cut, the RBA is taking active steps to achieve a 0.25% yield on Australian Government securities
Support for Non-ADI and smaller ADI lenders in the securitisation market
The Australian Office of Financial Management (AOFM) is receiving $15 billion in funding to invest in structured finance markets. The target of this measure is smaller authorised deposit taking institutions (ADI) and non-ADI lenders.
Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority (APRA) Supporting Lending
APRA is temporarily changing their expectations of a banks’ capital ratios in order to support their lending.
Supporting Individuals and Households
JobSeeker Payment
In response to a sudden and sharp increase in the number of unemployed Australians, a new streamlined processing of JobSeeker claims was introduced. JobSeeker is a pre-existing welfare payment available to eligible Australians while they are unemployed and in the active pursuit of gainful employment.
An employee cannot be in simultaneous receipt of JobKeeper and JobSeeker payments.
Changes to Other Income Support Payments
Recipients of income support payments are eligible for an additional fortnightly payment of $550 for a temporary six-month period. At the same time, eligibility for the payments has been expanded to allow for more Australians to receive the income support, and the supplementary fortnightly payment.
In addition to the ongoing payments, two separate $750 payments may be made to Australian income support recipients. The first payment was made on 31 March 2020, and the second payment is scheduled for 13 July 2020. The second payment is not available to recipients of the $550 fortnightly supplement. These stimulus injections are intended to increase confidence and domestic demand in the economy.
Changes to Superannuation
Australia’s superannuation program mandates wage contributions to a superfund in the purpose of supporting retirees and ensuring they have the financial means to survive and maintain quality of life. With the COVID-19 outbreak, two new measures have been introduced to allow Australian retirees to manage the impact of recent downturn on their superannuation and financial circumstances.
The first measure is allowing individuals to withdraw up to $10,000 from their superannuation in 2019-20 and an additional $10,000 in the following financial year. This withdrawal will not be taxed, nor will it affect income testing for income support payments.
The second measure is a temporary reduction of Superannuation drawdown requirements for retirees with account-base pensions. A reduction of 50% applies in both 2019-20 and 2020-21. This will lower the need to sell investment assets to fund minimum drawdown requirements.
Reduction of Social Security Deeming Rates
Both upper and lower social security rates were dropped by 0.5% on 12 March 2020. Another reduction has been announced, from 1 May 2020 the upper rate will be 2.25% and the lower 0.25%. This measure is in response to lowering interest rates and the reduction of savings income. Practically, this will mean an average increase of $105 in the Age Pension during the first year.
France is a great market for franchise networks where almost 2,000 networks are operated. It is one of the most successful scheme of developing business.
Franchisor must mainly respect French regulations on pre-disclosure information and French and EU competition regulations, among others rules. Although the control of the quality of its network and of its brand image is a very important and legitimate issue for franchisor, the latter cannot interfere too much in the day-to-day activity of the franchisees, since franchisees are independent businesses. Therefore relations between franchisors and franchisees are only based on commercial law and not on employment law. However, recent French rules will lead franchisors to implement some employment law rules with their franchisees and franchisees’ employees.
Foreign franchisors operating franchise networks in France must indeed know how to deal with the constraints incurred by the Employment Act (dated 08 August 2016) and its Decree (dated 04 May 2017), and effective as from May 07 2017, relating to the creation of an employee forum for the whole franchise network. Indeed this Social Dialogue Committee can impact deeply the organization of franchise networks.
First of all, only networks in which operators are bound by franchise agreements are concerned by the new social dialogue committee. Accordingly, trademark licensing and distribution contracts appear not to be included. Franchise agreements should be understood as sui generis contracts that are the sum of three separate agreements: a trademark licensing agreement, a know-how licensing agreement, and a commercial or technical assistance agreement. However, the Act of 08 august 2016 creates some confusion by stating that the franchise agreements concerned by this Social Dialogue Committee are the agreements “referred to in article L330-3 of the French Commercial Code”, although not only does that article not define what a franchise contract is, it may also apply to other contracts (exclusive distribution agreements) to determine whether the network fall into the scope of this Act.
Furthermore, according to the Act, only specific franchise agreements including “clauses that have an impact on work organisation and conditions in franchisee businesses” are concerned. The Act does not define such clauses although, on the one hand, whether a social dialogue committee is called for depends on identifying such clauses, and on the other hand, franchisees are in essence independent of the franchisor when organising and managing their business, including in employment matters. It will therefore be necessary to conduct an employment audit of all franchise agreements (for instance, what happens if a clause sets opening hours or defines a dress code?) to determine whether the network fall into the scope of this Act.
Finally, a Social Dialogue Committee is only called for in franchise networks employing at least 300 staff working (full-time) in France. It would seem that this does not include the franchisor’s employees or the employees of operators that are not bound to the network’s head by a franchise agreement (e.g., operators bound by a trademark licensing contract).
An implementation implying a long negotiation
Even where the legal requirements are met, franchisors are under no obligation to set up a Social Dialogue Committee spontaneously. However, once a trade union has called for an Social Dialogue Committee to be set up, the franchisor does have an obligation to take part actively in the negotiations initiated by that trade, to check with all the franchisees whether the number of employees in its network reaches the 300 threshold, and then to set up a “negotiation forum” made of representatives of employees (trade unions) and of employers (franchisor and franchisees) to negotiate an agreement creating and organizing the future Social Dialogue Committee.
The negotiations with trade unions and franchisees will end, within six months, in an agreement subject to the consent of franchisor, trade union(s) and at least of 30% of the franchisees (representing 30 % of the employees of the network). This agreement shall define the Social Dialogue Committee’s composition, how its members are designated, their term of office, the frequency of meetings, if and how many hours employees may dedicate to the committee, the material or financial means required for the committee to fulfill its purpose, and how running and meeting costs and representatives’ travel and subsistence expenses are handled, among other things. This last issue could be a major concern not only for franchisor but also for franchisees-employers. Failing to reach such agreement, the Decree imposes the creation of the Social Dialogue Committee with several strict and minimum provisions which could create unreasonable burden for the franchisor.
Once set up, internal rules define precisely how the Social Dialogue Committee is to function (required majorities, notices of meeting and referral, publication of debates, etc.).
Much ado about nothing?
The Social Dialogue Committee does not have the authority to investigate cases or to issue binding rulings, but the Social Dialogue Committee must be kept informed of franchisees joining or leaving the network and “of the franchisor’s decisions liable to impact the volume and structure of staff, working time, or the employment, work, and vocational training conditions of the franchisees’ employees”.
The Social Dialogue Committee may also make suggestions for improving such conditions throughout the network.
The impact of the Social Dialogue Committee is eventually rather limited, but franchisors have to master and control seriously the implementation of the rules in order to avoid loss of times and energy by their own franchisees and a disorganisation of its network.
Vietnam 
Cina 
Egitto 
Italia 
The incorporation of limited liability companies in The Netherlands and in Spain
- Diritto societario
-
Paesi Bassi -
Spagna
Scrivi a Clotilde
USA – Come gestire il rischio di azioni legali da parte dei dipendenti
26 Settembre 2022
-
USA
- Contenzioso
- Occupazione
A quali condizioni si può revocare l’incarico all’amministratore di una società in Francia?
Dipende dalla forma della società stessa.
Prendiamo le forme più comuni di società commerciali.
L’amministratore di una società a responsabilità limitata può essere revocato solo per giusta causa, cioè per negligenza, o se la revoca è necessaria per proteggere gli interessi della società.
In una società per azioni ordinaria i membri del consiglio di amministrazione e il presidente del consiglio di amministrazione possono essere revocati “ad nutum”, cioè in qualsiasi momento e senza dover fornire alcuna motivazione. Questa regola non può essere derogata. L’amministratore delegato, invece, può essere revocato solo per giusta causa.
Nelle società per azioni semplificate (“SAS”) è lo statuto a determinare le condizioni di gestione della società e, in particolare, le condizioni per la revoca dell’amministratore. Le SAS sono una forma societaria creata nel 1994, e rappresentano attualmente la forma societaria di maggior successo in Francia, al punto che una società di nuova costituzione su due è una SAS.
In questo tipo di società gli amministratori sono in linea di principio revocabili “ad nutum”, ma lo statuto può derogare a questa regola e prevedere che l’amministratore possa essere revocato solo per giusta causa.
Riguardo ai limiti della libertà statutaria, una recente decisione della Corte di Cassazione francese, la più alta corte giudiziaria francese, è di particolare interesse.
Infatti, la sentenza della Corte di Cassazione del 12 ottobre 2022 (n. 21-15.382) ha stabilito il principio per cui gli atti extra-statutari possono integrare lo statuto, ma non possono derogarvi.
Nel caso oggetto della decisione, lo statuto di una SAS prevedeva che l’amministratore delegato potesse essere licenziato in qualsiasi momento senza che fosse necessario alcun motivo, per decisione dei soci o del socio unico, e che il licenziamento dell’amministratore delegato non desse diritto ad alcun risarcimento.
L’amministratore delegato era stato nominato dall’azionista unico. Lo stesso giorno, l’azionista unico aveva inviato una lettera all’amministratore delegato in cui dichiarava che, in caso di revoca senza giusta causa, avrebbe ricevuto una somma forfettaria pari a sei mesi di retribuzione.
Qualche anno dopo, l’azienda aveva effettivamente revocato l’amministratore delegato, che aveva pertanto chiesto il pagamento dellasomma forfettaria concordata. Quando l’azienda si era rifiutata di pagarlo, l’ex amministratore delegato aveva fatto causa per ottenere il pagamento dell’indennità.
La Corte d’Appello e poi la Corte di Cassazione hanno dato ragione alla società: l’ex amministratore non aveva diritto all’indennità in quanto, per la Corte di Cassazione, è lo statuto a stabilire i termini di revoca dell’amministratore delegato ed è lo statuto a prevalere su ogni patto aggiunto. Sebbene atti extra-statutari possano integrare lo statuto, non possono derogarvi. Questo vale anche se l’atto extrastatutario proviene dall’unico socio, o se tutti i soci sono d’accordo.
Il nostro consiglio
E’ importante analizzare con attenzione lo statuto e gli atti extra-statutari come i patti parasociali o gli accordi con gli amministratori per evitare i rischi in caso di revoca di un amministratore nelle società per azioni semplificate.
Ogni datore di lavoro dovrebbe gestire il rischio di essere coinvolto in azioni legali promosse dai propri dipendenti. Molte imprese credono di trattare bene i dipendenti e che gli stessi siano felici. Di conseguenza, ritengono di non essere a rischio di controversie. Nel mio lavoro, però, mi capita spesso di vedere i rapporti di lavoro inacidirsi e i dipendenti sorprendere la direzione rivolgendosi ad un avvocato.
I datori di lavoro dovrebbero gestire questo rischio in modo proattivo, invece di sperare che le cause legali non arrivino mai. Difendere un’azienda dalle cause intentate da un attuale o ex dipendente richiede molto tempo e può essere molto costoso. Può anche essere incredibilmente frustrante vedere un dipendente di cui l’azienda si fidava fare accuse false e dannose. Tuttavia, i datori di lavoro possono adottare alcune misure preventive per ridurre l’impatto di un’azione legale: di seguito ne illustro otto.
In primo luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero prendere in considerazione l’acquisto di un’assicurazione che copra le richieste di risarcimento da parte dei dipendenti. Negli Stati Uniti, per esempio, questa assicurazione è chiamata “assicurazione per la responsabilità civile per le pratiche lavorative” (“EPLI”). Questo tipo di polizze assicurative permette di pagare un avvocato per difendere l’impresa in caso di azioni legali, e consente anche di coprire l’importo richiesto dal dipendente o riconosciutogli dal tribunale. Sebbene l’assicurazione abbia un costo, molte aziende preferiscono pagare premi regolari e prevedibili piuttosto che dover affrontare spese legali improvvise, elevate e imprevedibili ed eventuali risarcimenti ai dipendenti.
In secondo luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero implementare e far rispettare le politiche sulle molestie sessuali. Politiche come queste scoraggiano il tipo di comportamento che può esporre l’azienda a responsabilità, ma in molte giurisdizioni possono anche costituire una difesa per l’impresa, nel caso in cui un dipendente la citi in giudizio per aver permesso le molestie.
In terzo luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero esaminare seriamente le disparità di retribuzione e di ruolo. Se i dipendenti più pagati di un’azienda fossero in gran parte uomini e quelli meno pagati fossero in gran parte donne, un dipendente potrebbe sostenere di essere vittima di discriminazione sessuale. Allo stesso modo, se i dirigenti fossero in gran parte bianchi, mentre gli operai in gran parte persone di colore, un dipendente potrebbe sostenere di essere vittima di discriminazione razziale in azienda. Piuttosto che affrontare questi problemi, un’impresa dovrebbe verificare se queste disparità esistano o meno nel proprio ambiente di lavoro e, in caso affermativo, affrontarle.
In quarto luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero valutare se vogliono che le controversie di lavoro siano sottoposte ad arbitrato anziché aa un tribunale. I datori di lavoro possono determinare questo aspetto inserendo una clausola arbitrale nelle proposte di assunzione che inviano ai dipendenti al momento dell’assunzione. L’arbitrato presenta alcuni vantaggi: tende ad essere più rapido, è privato, ha la reputazione di essere un foro amichevole per i datori di lavoro e tende a costare meno. Ma ha anche alcuni svantaggi: non permette di fare appello nel merito della controversia e può costare più di una causa giudiziaria, a seconda del tipo di caso.
In quinto luogo, ogni volta che un dipendente riveli di avere un problema di salute, l’azienda dovrebbe immediatamente valutare come affrontarlo. Molti datori di lavoro possono ignorare la comunicazione di un problema di salute se non sembra importante per il lavoro del dipendente. Tuttavia, se in seguito il dipendente ritenesse di essere stato penalizzato a causa del problema di salute, potrebbe agire in giudizio per discriminazione. Prima che ciò accada, il datore di lavoro dovrebbe collaborare con il dipendente per assicurarsi che il problema di salute non ostacoli le prestazioni lavorative.
In sesto luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero assicurarsi di prendere decisioni coerenti. Se un datore di lavoro permettesse a un dipendente di lavorare da casa, altri dipendenti potrebbero volere lo stesso trattamento. E se un datore di lavoro licenziasse un dipendente, questi potrebbe chiedersi perché un altro non abbia avuto la stessa sorte. I datori di lavoro possono ridurre il rischio di una causa legale stabilendo delle politiche precise e rispettandole.
In settimo luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero consultare spesso un avvocato di fiducia qualora insorgano problemi di lavoro. Spendere qualche centinaio di dollari per parlare con un avvocato per un’ora prima di licenziare un dipendente o prima di rispondere ad un reclamo potrebbe aiutare un datore di lavoro a evitare una causa che potrebbe costare decine o addirittura centinaia di migliaia di dollari.
Infine, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero prendere in considerazione la possibilità di accordarsi per risolvere le controversie con i dipendenti, anche se sono prive di merito. Nessuna impresa vorrebbe che un dipendente si approfittasse di lei, ma le cause legali sono spesso più costose e fastidiose del costo di un accordo. Spendere molto denaro per la difesa, anche in caso di successo, può essere meno economico di scendere a compromessi e pagare al dipendente una frazione di quanto richiesto.
Summary – While China’s economy bore the brunt of the initial economic impact, the COVID-19 outbreak is bringing both direct and indirect complications for economies around the world. With China’s key role in the supply chain and manufacturing, in combination with lockdowns restricting movement, trade and business – fiscal authorities are implementing new measures to protect and stimulate their respective economies.
The Australian Government has announced a series of new regulatory, legislative and administrative changes that strengthen the country’s position moving through the crisis. The International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development forecast Australia’s growth outpacing many comparable countries, including France, Canada, Japan, Germany, and the UK – all without endangering Australia’s debt sustainability.
Australia’s Response
The Australian Federal Government has, in a series of announcements, revealed a consolidated package of $320 billion AUD or $200 billion USD[1] support – equivalent to 16.4% of the country’s nominal GDP. They have made a clear stance that Australia is prepared to protect its national interest and respond to the broad and prolonged impact of the outbreak.
The stimulus measures can be considered in three separate categories, each with an intended purpose:
- support businesses;
- support the flow of credit; and
- support individuals and households.
The measures come with consideration of varying factors, including helping with the management of short-term cash flow, assist severely affected communities and regions, to prop up individuals and households dealing with sudden loss of employment, maintaining employees’ connections with business, and to ensure the continued flow of credit.
The Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Act 2020 and Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus (Measures No. 2) were passed by parliament on 8 April 2020. More legislation is expected to come as Australian authorities continue to study the broader prolonged impacts of COVID-19.
State and local governments within Australia have also announced a wide range of measures in addition to those announced by the Federal Government.
[1] Based on AUD-USD exchange rate 21 April 2020
Support for Businesses
JobKeeper Subsidy
The Australian government has committed $130 billion in ongoing support to business through the JobKeeper subsidy. The payment is available to businesses that are suffering a reduction in turnover to keep Australians employed during the outbreak. The JobKeeper subsidy is a gross fortnightly payment of $1,500 for each eligible employee for a 6-month period. The full $1,500 payment is to be paid to each eligible employee, either as a partial subsidy if their wage is greater than $1,500, or as a full subsidy if their wage was previously less than $1,500. The gross payment will be taxed at normal rates, although employers are not obliged to make additional superannuation contributions.
The scheme includes sole traders as well as businesses and not-for-profits (NFP).
Boosting Cash Flow for Employers
Small and medium businesses, as well as NFP are eligible for cashflow boosts to further assist in retaining employees. Tax-free cash flow boosts of $20,000 to $100,000 will be delivered to eligible businesses and organisations with aggregated annual turnover under $50 million. The Government has specifically acknowledged the increasing demand for NFP services during this crisis.
In a series of two payments, each payment will be equivalent to the business’ withheld salary and wages, with a minimum of $10,000 and maximum of $50,000. The first cashflow boost is set to be available between March and July 2020; the second boost will be made to businesses who received the first and will be of an equal sum, to be paid between June to September 2020. By splitting the support into two equal payments, the intention is to provide continued cash flow support over a longer period – increasing confidence and assisting businesses to maintain their operations.
Temporary Relief for Financially Distressed Businesses
Recognising the need for a safety net to allow businesses to resume operation post-crisis, this measure provides legislative support to financially distressed businesses. The temporary changes include reducing thresholds for creditors to issue statutory demands and initiate bankruptcy proceedings, increasing time available to respond to statutory demands, relieving directors from personal liability for trading while insolvent, and providing flexibility in the Corporations Act 2001 when dealing with unforeseen circumstances stemming from the COVID-19 crisis.
The Australian Taxation Office is willing to tailor solutions for directors and owners currently suffering. These may include reductions in payments or deferrals and withholding enforcement actions.
Changes to Asset Write-Off and Depreciation Deductions
The threshold for instant asset write-off is increased from $30,000 to $150,000 and access is expanded to businesses with aggregated annual turnover less than $500 million (previously $50 million) until the end of the 2019-20 financial year (i.e. 30 June 2020).
Up until the end of the 2020-21 financial years, depreciation deductions are accelerated for businesses under the same $500 million threshold. Upon installation of assets, 50% can be deduced with existing depreciation deduction rates to the balance. This measure is considered an investment incentive for businesses.
Supporting Apprentices and Trainees
Eligible employers may have 50% of an apprentice’s or trainee’s wage subsidised between 1 January 2020 and 30 September 2020. When businesses are unable to retain their apprentice or trainee, the subsidy can be provided to a new employer. As a part of this program, Australia’s National Apprentice Employment Network will provide further support in coordinating re-employment of workers affected by the COVID-19 crisis.
Support for Affected Regions and Industries
$1 billion of stimulus funds is reserved to support regions that are most impacted by the COVID-19 crisis. The purpose is to provide assistance during both the outbreak and the recovery. Further, the Australian airline industry is receiving tax and fee relief, with an estimate value of $715 million.
Support Flow of Credit
Immediate Cash Flow Needs for SMEs
The Government is providing guarantees of 50% for SME lenders to encourage new short-term unsecured loans for SMEs. By increasing lender’s willingness to provide credit, Australian businesses will be in a better position to secure loans and increase their cash flow.
Quick and efficient access to credit for small business
Small businesses will have more and faster access to credit as an exemption is provided to ‘responsible lending’ requirements.
Reserve Bank of Australia Measures to Support Credit Flow
The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) has made funding available for banks at a fixed interest rate of 0.25%. This measure will reinforce a lower cash rate, helping to reduce interest rates for borrowers. The RBA funding is incentivised to banks who expand their business lending, especially for new loans to SMEs. To complement the interest rate cut, the RBA is taking active steps to achieve a 0.25% yield on Australian Government securities
Support for Non-ADI and smaller ADI lenders in the securitisation market
The Australian Office of Financial Management (AOFM) is receiving $15 billion in funding to invest in structured finance markets. The target of this measure is smaller authorised deposit taking institutions (ADI) and non-ADI lenders.
Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority (APRA) Supporting Lending
APRA is temporarily changing their expectations of a banks’ capital ratios in order to support their lending.
Supporting Individuals and Households
JobSeeker Payment
In response to a sudden and sharp increase in the number of unemployed Australians, a new streamlined processing of JobSeeker claims was introduced. JobSeeker is a pre-existing welfare payment available to eligible Australians while they are unemployed and in the active pursuit of gainful employment.
An employee cannot be in simultaneous receipt of JobKeeper and JobSeeker payments.
Changes to Other Income Support Payments
Recipients of income support payments are eligible for an additional fortnightly payment of $550 for a temporary six-month period. At the same time, eligibility for the payments has been expanded to allow for more Australians to receive the income support, and the supplementary fortnightly payment.
In addition to the ongoing payments, two separate $750 payments may be made to Australian income support recipients. The first payment was made on 31 March 2020, and the second payment is scheduled for 13 July 2020. The second payment is not available to recipients of the $550 fortnightly supplement. These stimulus injections are intended to increase confidence and domestic demand in the economy.
Changes to Superannuation
Australia’s superannuation program mandates wage contributions to a superfund in the purpose of supporting retirees and ensuring they have the financial means to survive and maintain quality of life. With the COVID-19 outbreak, two new measures have been introduced to allow Australian retirees to manage the impact of recent downturn on their superannuation and financial circumstances.
The first measure is allowing individuals to withdraw up to $10,000 from their superannuation in 2019-20 and an additional $10,000 in the following financial year. This withdrawal will not be taxed, nor will it affect income testing for income support payments.
The second measure is a temporary reduction of Superannuation drawdown requirements for retirees with account-base pensions. A reduction of 50% applies in both 2019-20 and 2020-21. This will lower the need to sell investment assets to fund minimum drawdown requirements.
Reduction of Social Security Deeming Rates
Both upper and lower social security rates were dropped by 0.5% on 12 March 2020. Another reduction has been announced, from 1 May 2020 the upper rate will be 2.25% and the lower 0.25%. This measure is in response to lowering interest rates and the reduction of savings income. Practically, this will mean an average increase of $105 in the Age Pension during the first year.
France is a great market for franchise networks where almost 2,000 networks are operated. It is one of the most successful scheme of developing business.
Franchisor must mainly respect French regulations on pre-disclosure information and French and EU competition regulations, among others rules. Although the control of the quality of its network and of its brand image is a very important and legitimate issue for franchisor, the latter cannot interfere too much in the day-to-day activity of the franchisees, since franchisees are independent businesses. Therefore relations between franchisors and franchisees are only based on commercial law and not on employment law. However, recent French rules will lead franchisors to implement some employment law rules with their franchisees and franchisees’ employees.
Foreign franchisors operating franchise networks in France must indeed know how to deal with the constraints incurred by the Employment Act (dated 08 August 2016) and its Decree (dated 04 May 2017), and effective as from May 07 2017, relating to the creation of an employee forum for the whole franchise network. Indeed this Social Dialogue Committee can impact deeply the organization of franchise networks.
First of all, only networks in which operators are bound by franchise agreements are concerned by the new social dialogue committee. Accordingly, trademark licensing and distribution contracts appear not to be included. Franchise agreements should be understood as sui generis contracts that are the sum of three separate agreements: a trademark licensing agreement, a know-how licensing agreement, and a commercial or technical assistance agreement. However, the Act of 08 august 2016 creates some confusion by stating that the franchise agreements concerned by this Social Dialogue Committee are the agreements “referred to in article L330-3 of the French Commercial Code”, although not only does that article not define what a franchise contract is, it may also apply to other contracts (exclusive distribution agreements) to determine whether the network fall into the scope of this Act.
Furthermore, according to the Act, only specific franchise agreements including “clauses that have an impact on work organisation and conditions in franchisee businesses” are concerned. The Act does not define such clauses although, on the one hand, whether a social dialogue committee is called for depends on identifying such clauses, and on the other hand, franchisees are in essence independent of the franchisor when organising and managing their business, including in employment matters. It will therefore be necessary to conduct an employment audit of all franchise agreements (for instance, what happens if a clause sets opening hours or defines a dress code?) to determine whether the network fall into the scope of this Act.
Finally, a Social Dialogue Committee is only called for in franchise networks employing at least 300 staff working (full-time) in France. It would seem that this does not include the franchisor’s employees or the employees of operators that are not bound to the network’s head by a franchise agreement (e.g., operators bound by a trademark licensing contract).
An implementation implying a long negotiation
Even where the legal requirements are met, franchisors are under no obligation to set up a Social Dialogue Committee spontaneously. However, once a trade union has called for an Social Dialogue Committee to be set up, the franchisor does have an obligation to take part actively in the negotiations initiated by that trade, to check with all the franchisees whether the number of employees in its network reaches the 300 threshold, and then to set up a “negotiation forum” made of representatives of employees (trade unions) and of employers (franchisor and franchisees) to negotiate an agreement creating and organizing the future Social Dialogue Committee.
The negotiations with trade unions and franchisees will end, within six months, in an agreement subject to the consent of franchisor, trade union(s) and at least of 30% of the franchisees (representing 30 % of the employees of the network). This agreement shall define the Social Dialogue Committee’s composition, how its members are designated, their term of office, the frequency of meetings, if and how many hours employees may dedicate to the committee, the material or financial means required for the committee to fulfill its purpose, and how running and meeting costs and representatives’ travel and subsistence expenses are handled, among other things. This last issue could be a major concern not only for franchisor but also for franchisees-employers. Failing to reach such agreement, the Decree imposes the creation of the Social Dialogue Committee with several strict and minimum provisions which could create unreasonable burden for the franchisor.
Once set up, internal rules define precisely how the Social Dialogue Committee is to function (required majorities, notices of meeting and referral, publication of debates, etc.).
Much ado about nothing?
The Social Dialogue Committee does not have the authority to investigate cases or to issue binding rulings, but the Social Dialogue Committee must be kept informed of franchisees joining or leaving the network and “of the franchisor’s decisions liable to impact the volume and structure of staff, working time, or the employment, work, and vocational training conditions of the franchisees’ employees”.
The Social Dialogue Committee may also make suggestions for improving such conditions throughout the network.
The impact of the Social Dialogue Committee is eventually rather limited, but franchisors have to master and control seriously the implementation of the rules in order to avoid loss of times and energy by their own franchisees and a disorganisation of its network.
