Unusually for an August the topic of bonuses is back in the news pages. This isn’t surprising given that the recession has been firmly blamed on reckless bankers supposedly taking unnecessary risks to generate huge returns that almost led the banking system to collapse last autumn. Both Barclays and HSBC have announced huge profits for the last six months. In Barclays case it was £3bn up 8% on the equivalent period last year, and the comparable figure for HSBC was £2.8bn. Both banks also revealed that they were making massive provision for bad debts. Bob Diamond, the head of Barclays Capital (BarCap) was on the front page of The Independent on Tuesday, where it was reported that he had received a remuneration package in excess of $50mn at the height of the boom. The Independent also reported that the “average net income generated per member of staff” at BarCap had increased from £134,000 to £193,000 per member of staff in the last six months. The FT also reports today that a US hedge fund group called Och-Ziff, based in the US made a loss of $88.3mn because of a 74% increase in bonuses paid to its top traders. At the Dale Langley & Co website we recently posted on the steps the FSA are taking to try and restrict remuneration packages – click here to visit. The government, the FSA and the public are all determined to stick the boot in.
Much of the anger generated over this issue has been stoked by the fact that the taxpayer bailed out the banking system to prevent its collapse. In the case of Barclays and HSBC, of course, they did not directly receive state funds but are judged to have been indirect beneficiaries of the taxpayers’ largesse. If this wasn’t August we would, presumably be seeing the usual collection of hippies, anarchists and eco-warriors calling for bankers to be strung up from the nearest lamp-post (where are they - visiting their holiday squats in Tuscany?) The central issue is how do you balance the need for restraint with incentivising employees to produce the goods? Some much needed perspective on the whole issue was provided by Sean O’Grady writing in today’s Independent (click here). He calls for “sensible, intelligent rules” to govern remuneration packages and deplores the hypocrisy that sees people calling for bankers to hand back their bonuses: “if you or I were offered a £25mn bonus, we wouldn’t hand it back. Nor would we say no to the taxpayer paying for a second home, as our MPs did”. Good performance should be rewarded appropriately.
This of course is the nub of the matter as far as employees (and employment lawyers) are concerned. Over the years I have seen many people who are unhappy with the annual bonus they have been awarded and I’ve written before on the difficult legal issues that arise when it comes to challenging a bonus (click here). In recent months with all the redundancies occurring, perhaps not surprisingly, it has become less and less common for employers to make any sort of payment in respect of bonus. When negotiating a contract of employment it is always worth trying to include provision for payment, or pro-rata payment, of the bonus that would have been received had the employee remained in employment at the payment date.
Repayment and clawback provisions in new contracts of employment are also becoming increasingly common, especially amongst those banks that have received state funds. They will usually require that if performance (whether individual or corporate) does not match up to expectations then bonuses paid (including guaranteed bonuses) can be clawed back. The period of time covered by the clawback can be quite lengthy, perhaps two – three years, meaning that the recipient employee can be left in some uncertainty about how secure the guarantee is. This is an issue that needs to be dealt with at the stage of negotiating the terms of the contract upon joining the business: it can sometimes be renegotiated to the benefit of the employee. Just recently I have been instructed on a number of contract negotiations by employees who have secured offers of employment – evidence of “green shoots” perhaps? - and some of the sting of the clawback was removed.
