Should an Employee who was not issued with an Employment letter give a written Notice to Resign?

know_your_rights_image

Amaka started working as an analyst in a commodities brokerage located in Victoria Island. Shortly before her employment, the Human Resources manager had resigned due to a dispute with the senior management. Due to this state of affairs, Amaka was not issued with an employment letter by the company and this state of affairs continued unremedied for the next year as the company searched for another Human Resources manager.

Amaka being a hard worker, was not bothered by the non-issuance of an employment letter, believing that she would prove her worth to the company over time. Moreover, she had been jobless for 2 years after the completion of her national youth service, and she was not going to let a simple matter as the non issuance of an employment letter prevent her from enjoying the fruits of such a juicy job.

Fast forward, and Amaka had worked punishing hours  for 3 years under a continuously tense environment worsened by her nasty boss who had been pursuing a vendetta against her for not accepting his lascivious overtures. He had promised to ruin her career and make life difficult for her whilst she remained under his employment. Despite consistently delivering stellar work, she was repeatedly given low grades during performance appraisals and consequently denied promotions. Amaka felt like a slave and was treated almost like one.

A few months later, Amaka received an offer from another investment bank, with considerably better terms of service and benefits. She promptly turned in her 2 weeks notice of resignation and patiently waited for  her salary at the end of the month. On the 30th day of the month, she received a letter from the Managing Director informing her that her resignation had been rejected on the grounds that it was company policy that employees were to give 1 (One) clear month’s notice or forfeit their monthly salary in lieu of notice. The letter was delivered by her boss with a malicious smirk on his toad-like face.

Amaka was incensed!!! This was a travesty, and she was not going to allow it. She promptly sought out legal advice on her options against the company.

The position of the law is that an employee has the right to resign with immediate effect, and the rejection of his resignation is tantamount to forced labour, and also against the time-honoured labour law principle that an employer cannot force himself on an unwilling employee. Employees are considered to have given notice of their intention to resign if they unambiguously inform their employers that they will terminate the contract on a certain date.

Furthermore, the Labour Act states that an employer must give an employee a written contract within 3 months of the commencement of the employment. The Labour Act also makes it unlawful for an employer to deduct the salary of employee by way of penalty, except in situations where the employer suffers a loss as a result of the misconduct of the employee.

From the facts  there was a failure of Amaka’s employers to provide her with an employment agreement stipulating the terms of her employment, including the process for terminating the employment relationship. The necessary conclusion is that the attempt by the company to withhold her salary on the grounds of non-adherence to company policy falls flat on the failure of the company to comply with the provisions of the Labour Act. The absence of an express requirement for 1 month notice implies that the employment relationship could be terminated at will. Consequently Amaka’s resignation is valid at law, and she can enforce her right to the withheld salary against the company by a suit at the National industrial Court.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why Lawyers Make Good Early-Stage Startup Hires

the20law20of20startups20icon

By Daniel Doktori and Sarah Reed (culled From hbr.org)

It’s a startup shibboleth that entrepreneurship and formal education don’t mix. For icons such as Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates, so goes the lore, finishing a bachelor’s degree would have only stifled the creativity that fueled their companies to stratospheric success. PayPal founder Peter Thiel offers a $100,000 fellowship to “young people who want to build new things instead of sitting in a classroom.” Graduate degrees are thought to merely exacerbate the problem of too much thinking, too little doing. And while high-profile efforts by top business schools to teach and promote entrepreneurship have lessened the stigma around the MBA, the law degree continues to occupy a unique place of villainy among the startup set. After all, YouTube, Uber, and Airbnb, among many others, were founded on ideas that challenged, if not broke, laws and regulations. When it comes to a tech startup, lawyers are a bug, not a feature. Right?

Maybe not. Lawyers can add value in the obvious ways, helping to avoid early mistakes like issuing stock too late in the game, when the company has grown in value and the employees can no longer take advantage of favorable tax treatment. But more importantly, a lawyer on the early team can contribute to a thriving company culture by asking the right questions at the right times, providing perspective on crucial transactions, and getting smart fast on issues where the rest of the team lacks expertise.

Lawyers help startups deal with common transactions and avoid costly mistakes.

Issuing equity to the early team often triggers time-sensitive filings with the IRS. Successfully commercializing a product depends upon clean and clear lines of intellectual property ownership. Raising outside financing requires compliance with complex securities laws. A misstep on any of these items could mean an early exit for a startup company (and not the good kind). A corporate lawyer with a few years of relevant training can help navigate these and other common set-up requirements.

Moreover, lawyers, particularly corporate transactional lawyers, have repeated exposure to the types of deals — and the associated risks — that a startup will face. The dynamics between a CEO and the investors on her board are a function of the legal arrangements articulated in the financing agreements. The relationship between a company and its customers stems from a license agreement governing how users may interact with a product. Partnering with a larger company in a similar industry can, in the best case, open new markets or, in the worst, box a company into a corner, severely limiting options for growth and eventual acquisition. Lawyers understand these transactions and the perspectives of the negotiators involved.

And when the complexity of the particular deal exceeds the expertise of the lawyer on the team, she can play the savvy procurer of legal services, knowing how to target efforts and limit costs. Such experience comes in handy in managing other third-party service providers such as bankers, accountants, and consultants.

While these benefits are valuable, however, they don’t in and of themselves justify a startup hiring a full-time in-house lawyer. Early stage companies — at least those with founders sufficiently experienced or savvy to recognize that they walk a road pitted with legal potholes — tend to manage such standard risks by hiring outside counsel. And while the costs associated with that outside attorney often rank among the highest in a startup’s budget, they do not typically rise to the level of a full-time annual salary. To justify her presence among the first dozen employees, a lawyer must add something beyond legal knowledge to the equation.

Lawyers are trained to ask the right questions at the right times.

Counterintuitively, lawyers can add the strategic absence of knowledge. President Harry Truman famously longed for a “one-handed economist” when presented with the equivocating analysis of his advisers, but executives in politics and business need to understand opposing viewpoints in order to make informed decisions. Legal education and training includes a strong emphasis on questioning assumptions and probing for further information.

Rather than crippling the company through risk aversion and overanalysis, however, having a lawyer on the early team contributes to a data-driven, analytic culture of thoughtful decision making. Further, lawyers are trained as advisers and service providers. They can ask questions, explore options, and execute on answers, but they don’t expect to make the final call. This comfort with playing a supporting role helps avoid the egocentrism that can cripple any organization, particularly a nascent one.

The lawyer’s craft sometimes can be boiled down to a willingness to immerse herself within the “fine print,” offering to read what no one else will on account of complexity, length, or sheer dryness. Trained to ensure that even simple advice is backed by evidence, lawyers read closely to the point of comprehension as a matter of professional responsibility. Such a skill enables a lawyer to take responsibility for a wider variety of important matters. Fledgling startups inevitably have to rely on analysis over experience. Lawyers fit well in such situations.

Not every lawyer is well suited for the gig, however. A lawyer with the qualifications outlined above needs a tolerance for risk. For one thing, she must be willing to give up her plush office and lucrative salary for a computer station at a long table and compensation in the form of prayers, otherwise known as stock options. Her professional risk tolerance must follow suit. An essential attribute of a business attorney is providing “risk-adjusted” advice, and the level of tolerable risk for a startup generally far exceeds that for a Fortune 500 company. Lawyers at startups need to recognize that a workable answer today is often preferable to the perfect answer tomorrow; hand-wringers need not apply.

But risk tolerance must be accompanied by a stiff spine in situations where the company’s momentum (and the CEO’s vision) hurtles on a collision course with the law or the company’s outstanding commitments. In these cases, a willingness to speak up is one of the many things lawyers can bring to the table.

Daniel Doktori is the Chief of Staff and General Counsel at Credly, a digital credential service provider. He previously represented startup companies at WilmerHale, a law firm.

Sarah Reed is the Chief Operating Officer and General Counsel of MPM Capital, a venture capital firm that invests in early-stage life sciences companies. Previously, she was the general counsel of Charles River Ventures, an early-stage technology venture capital firm.

How can you transfer your music copyrights?

b5369ae73f12204464fef1de98c14a66

Wale is a music producer. Recently he composed music for a hit track which enjoyed substantial airplay for over 6 months. Consequent upon the success of his track, he was approached by an international music corporation, who requested him to transfer his copyright in the music to the company in return for a one off payment of $200,000 and royalties capped at 5% of  global sales for the next 2 years. They assured him that he would enjoy more concert appearances with the allied revenue streams. Wale is confused and requires advice on his legal rights.

Of all the forms of copyright protected works, music is perhaps the most restricted and licensed. Since music was first broadcast on radio, a vast mechanism for licensing music has emerged from the opposing forces of the recording industry and the radio and TV broadcasting industries.

Copyright ownership can be transferred like any other form of property. Copyright is transmissible by assignment, by testamentary disposition, operation of law, as personal or moveable property. however, to give legal effect to that transmission there must be a written agreement signed by the assignor. Any grant by the copyright owner binds every successor in title except a bona-fide purchaser for value without notice (actual or constructive).

This doesn’t however mean that a copyright cannot be transferred verbally, as it is trite law that a verbal agreement to which both parties have agreed all the terms (i.e. has reached completion) is legally binding. It follows then that a verbal agreement to assign, provided there is no dispute as to the terms of the assignment between the assignor and assignee, is valid and copyright is transmissible by operation of basic contract. It is however advisable that the parties sign a confirmatory assignment agreement which refers retrospectively to the earlier assignment.

The transfer could be partial or total, where the rights owner can transfer all of the exclusive rights his or her grants. In partial assignment, a music author may transfer his reproduction, translation and adaptation rights to a publisher. He may also decide to split his rights between different persons.

Copyright assignment agreements can be limited in terms of duration or territory. The author of a literary work could, for example, assign their right to reproduce it in the UK, Nigeria, Ghana and the Gambia for 4 years.

Copyright assignment agreements can be reversionary, in other words, the rights can revert back to the assignor on the occurrence of an uncertain event, such as an unremedied breach of contract. This protects the assignor from the loss of their rights in the event of the occurrence of certain events which may be vitiate the transfer contract.

The transfer of copyrights contains some knotty issues, which could become highly problematic if not properly managed. When faced with a decision on copyrights, it is best that you seek advice from a qualified legal practitioner, so as to ensure that you take the best steps in the circumstances.

Milton & Cross Solicitors provides advice to entertainers, rights owners, rights administrators and merchandisers. We help them make informed decisions that facilitate high value transactions. Contact us for a free consultation.

Thoughts on Strategy

Knowledge and information, technology, people and inspiration are the weapons that leaders of an organization should have before they step into a battle.

Kautilya

Perception is strong and sight weak. In strategy it is important to see distant things as if they were close and to take a distanced view of close things”

Miyamoto Musashi,

Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory, tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.”

Sun Tzu

Be vigilant about your competitors’ efforts and progress.

Kautilya

Startups also have a true north, a destination in mind: creating a thriving and world-changing business. I call that a startup’s vision. To achieve that vision, startups employ a strategy, which includes a business model, a product road map, a point of view about partners and competitors, and ideas about who the customer will be. The product is the end result of this strategy

Eric Ries

So how do you beat laziness? The answer is a little greed.  It’s that radio station WII-FM, which stands for “What’s In It-For Me?”

Robert Kiyosaki