In other words, can the employees of a company injunct its owner to prevent him from retiring?.
Do the employees en bloc have any legal case upon which to injunct the owner to stall the dissolution of the company ?
In other words, can the employees of a company injunct its owner to prevent him from retiring?
I suspect the answer to that question is a firm No.
So in short, the owner wants (through pig headedness) to shut down the business, pay minimum redundancy and sell the building? What are they going to do with the specialist equipment, sell it for scrap?
I have experienced something like this, but the business was just sold with no offer to staff. Just a "your new boss will be here to see you tomorrow."
If I worked there, I would try to source new (or second hand) equipment and continue on with the existing clients. When you work in an specialized industry you hear about equipment being forsale or even competitors who have spare capacity. The building is 'easily' replaced.
Vanity isn't illegal, even if it is present here.Not quite stop the man from retiring.
Nor stop him from selling or dissolving the existing company.
But yes, stop him from dissolving it in such a vain way as to leave 30 people in grevious hardship.
My guess is that the directors know that this business is in serious trouble and have chosen to get out when they can.
IANAL but I'll eat my proverbial hat if there is a law anywhere that prohibits anyone from shutting down a business.
I didn't say that, so please don't put words in my mouthSo you're saying it might be a case of a business good trading position (that's what the externals like custom and pricing suggest) but one nonetheless whose net assets (perhaps due to borrowings on the the assets on the part of the owner as a private individual ?) may be seriously negative ?
Are you asking about a specific case or is this a theoretical case?
I doubt that there is anything to stop an employer ceasing to trade and paying redundancy to his employees.
Likewise, if the employees set up a company and offers to take over the business but not the property, thus saving the employer the very high costs of redundancy, there is nothing to stop the employees from making such an offer.
If it's a competitive business, the customers must go somewhere. They employees should be getting ready to offer their services to competitors.
If it's a real situation, there is probably something else going on here. The employees may have stymied their employer over the years and now it's payback time even if it's costing the employer. But selling it to the employees might be effectively rewarding them for their behaviour.
Horrible sentiments.But some employers see themselves as a class apart, whether by virtue of their capacity to raise capital for ventures or their swashbuckling deal-making and selling. Bossing employees around for years, they tend to view employees' ambitions and managerial skill as too low to continue "their" enterprise. I've met many employers who made a point of giving no help - even a word of encouragement - whatever to anyone going out on their own. It's not a nice thing to say but most small business owners I've come across were motivated by neither the desire to bring something new to their industry nor even to make a lot of money for themselves. It seemed to be nothing more than a desire to be in control of matters around them using resources as a tool.
Even if the employees could stop the owner from making them redundant and winding up the business (and I can't see how they could do more than delay it by arguing that a correct consultation process had been followed), what is to stop the owner from telling all his clients that he is tripling his prices and destroying his business model, and then making the employees redundant?
I work in IT an would absolutely be trying to set up business to take on the clients in this situation. But it sounds as if the equipment needed is a barrier. The employer might be open to an offer to buy the equipment. Worth a go I would say.All the employees could do in such a situation - and it is the critical factor in this time-sensitive situation - is to personally meet and explain the stand-off to the clients and what the employees' legal case is, assure them of business as usual for the present and for the immediate future. Good professional relations with clients are never as crucial as in situations like these since here all business logic indicates the need to change service supplier.
The employer might be open to an offer to buy the equipment. Worth a go I would say.
The employer's unwillingness to sell business equipment to employees is the chief handicap in the whole scenario.
Anyway, this matter is for legal people.
What is stopping the employees buying the equipment through a third party when the business closes? Failing that buy new equipment and delay the sale of the current business in the meantime.The employer's unwillingness to sell business equipment to employees is the chief handicap in the whole scenario.
Anyway, this matter is for legal people.
In effect, can you legally force a staff buy out- almost certainly not.
Is staying on in the building and let him retain ownership and then rent it- in effect it becomes a "pension fund" for the owner an option?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?