The Prevalence of Layoffs

In recent years, layoffs have become increasingly common, with many companies adopting the N+1 compensation scheme as a standard practice. However, some employees in the workplace sometimes take on the role of “spiritual capitalists,” believing that N+1 compensation is sufficient and viewing any further demands as greedy. In certain foreign companies, as long as they offer more than N+1, many people express gratitude and praise.

Legal Provisions for No-Fault Layoffs

It’s important to note that in cases where employees are not at fault, companies must reach a mutual agreement with employees for the layoff to be considered legitimate; otherwise, it may constitute an illegal dismissal.

Many individuals choose to accept N+1 compensation primarily because the costs of pursuing their rights are high, and they have limited time and energy. Going up against a collective force is undoubtedly a daunting task. While it’s possible to secure a 2N payout, that would merely be what the law entitles them to. The company doesn’t face any additional penalties, which could lead to a waste of time and energy on our part.

After undergoing six meetings, the company failed to identify any fault on my part. Ultimately, they issued me a “Notice of Termination of Labor Contract,” citing “significant changes in the objective circumstances under which the labor contract was established, making it impossible to fulfill the contract,” and were only willing to offer N+1 compensation. This justification was clearly unfounded, as the company is a profitable publicly traded entity that continues to advertise for the same positions on its website.

After consulting with two lawyers, their opinion was that the Notice of Termination of Labor Contract is likely legal and enforceable. This means that my employment relationship with the company would end according to the timeline stated in the notice. I could have taken this notice to labor arbitration to argue for unlawful dismissal and seek 2N compensation. However, I faced an awkward situation: my stock options were set to vest the following week, while the termination of my employment would occur the day before.

Equity incentives granted by publicly traded companies are usually additional forms of compensation. The company’s HR threatened to revoke my stock options, coercing me into accepting the N+1 offer. In fact, the combination of the N+1 compensation and the stock’s value exceeded the 2N payout.

From the company’s perspective, they preferred to grant me more in stock rather than allow me to receive compensation exceeding N+1, as this might encourage other employees to follow suit. They would rather see me take legal action than to directly offer me more compensation, thereby discouraging future claims from other employees.
After careful consideration, I ultimately decided to accept the N+1 offer, as my attempts to advocate for my rights were unsuccessful.

Facing the threat of unvested stock options, my feelings are mixed.
Lawyers did not provide much optimism regarding the possibility of reclaiming the stock.
It could take one to two years to secure a 2N payout, while the stock is likely unrecoverable.
In terms of overall value, the combination of N+1 and the stock still exceeds the 2N compensation.

Does signing an agreement under the threat of stock revocation constitute coercion? Can it be deemed invalid? Are there any lawyers willing to take on my case?

Steven Gerrard Slip, 2014

4th minute of first-half stoppage time in the match between Liverpool and Chelsea in the 36th round of the 2013-2014 Premier League season