Employee Ownership Australia and New Zealand (EOA) was formed in July 2011 out of the Australian Employee Ownership Association (AEOA). EOA has the same principles as those shared of the AEOA’s founders. When AEOA was formed by 20 companies in 1986 its principles were to be a member-focused, non-profit association. Its purpose was to assist members with their employee ownership (or co-ownership) plan, employee engagement and involvement and employee participation levels
The project subjects the existing regulatory regime for employee share ownership plans in Australia – in tax, corporate and labour law – to technical and empirical scrutiny. This research report presents findings from a survey of employee share ownership practice in ASXlisted companies.
The project subjects the existing regulatory regime for employee share ownership plans in Australia – in tax, corporate and labour law – to technical and empirical scrutiny. This report considers the objectives and current practice in this area and notes that employee ownership levels tend to be lower for unlisted entities than for listed entities. It also examines the regulatory obstacles to such ownership and makes recommendations for reform to facilitate employee ownership in this area.
This paper provides an overview of existing data on employee share ownership (ESO) in Australia. It is concerned with broad-based employee share ownership plans.
This study explores, through case studies of ESO plans at two Australian companies, three key issues relevant to the implementation of ESO plans and the policy and regulation applicable to ESO plans.
This study seeks to open up an examination of the reasons for implementing an ESO scheme at the enterprise level in Australia, through two interview-based case studies conducted at National Australia Bank Ltd and Palm Springs Ltd.
This paper surveys key issues and themes surrounding ESO schemes in Australia.
It has been observed that corporate law and labour (or employment) law are in essence separate fields of legal scholarship and regulatory policy. This separation does not mean that there has been no interest by company lawyers in labour law or vice versa; nor does it mean that the two fields do not have relevance to one another. Clearly both corporate law and labour law have provided certain fundamental starting points for analysis which have helped shape the regulatory scope of each other.
In light of varying outlooks on the process of individualisation in the hitherto collectively regulated industries, it was thought worthwhile revisiting the three disputes (those involving CRA Weipa, BHP, and the Commonwealth Bank) and thoroughly documenting them with a view to discovering what light they shed on the objectives of the individualisation process.