Is the owner of a business always entitled to the final say?

[Owner]

The general manager of a business I own believes that he should have the final say over operational matters.

As owner is it I however who is entitled to the final say over for example pricing decisions?

And am I entitled to provide guidance to staff?

Or could the manager argue that this is interfering with his role and if found too objectionable, move for constructive dismissal?

If the answer is that it depends on what's in his contract, could I, giving suitable notice, redefine his role in a way that is more agreeable to me?

[efpom]

Is it a limited company?

[Owner]

Yes - I own all the shares

[efpom]

Shortly put, as the company is a limited company, you do not enjoy any right to interfere in the day to day running of the company. Your status as a shareholder, even if your shareholding is 100%, does not displace that. It follows that the answer to all of the questions you pose is - No.

[Owner]

Thanks for your response but any information I can find online, albeit generally American, suggests that the board of directors can fire the ceo. I cannot believe that I can be stopped from positively influencing my own business.

[efpom]

This is like pulling teeth - Are you a director of the company?
How many directors are there?

[Owner]

I am the managing director and there are two other (non shareholding) directors.

[Matty B]

From a non legal perspective, if you interfere with the general managers role he or she may just tell you to stick it where the sun doesn't shine . Then you will have all the trouble and costs of recruiting a new GM.

Of course you may want to run the company yourself which is up to you but why did you employ a GM if that was the case?

If you redefine the role you may end up having to make them redundant- more costs

[efpom]

If you are the managing director, your general manager reports to you. I assume that the general manager is not a director. I also assume, that as managing director, you are fully familiar with the Companies Act.

[Owner]

I don't want to run the company on a day to day basis, but it has always been my intention to have a level of involvement. I did mention this at the time of his appointment but the business was in such chaos at the time (having been neglected for years before my purchase) with other directors keen to make the appointment that I didn't labour the point as perhaps I might have.

The general manager is not a director.

[efpom]

Whether you do or do not run the company on a day to day basis is, with respect, irrelevant. The law will assume the former.

If your employee general manager screws up, as managing director, you, together with your fellow directors, are "it", so far as the law is concerned, and whether you like it or not, you are assumed to know the law, including the Companies Act.

[Owner]

xxxx

[islandgirl]

My company my shares my control in my view!