New rights for workers on zero-hours contracts could be watered down after a proposed amendment to the Employment Rights Bill tabled in the House of Lords.
The government had pledged to introduce a ban on “exploitative” zero-hours contracts, requiring employers to offer employees reasonable notice of changes to shifts and payment for any that are cancelled or curtailed at short notice.
The Bill had also initially proposed that workers would gain a right to guaranteed hours “where the number of hours offered reflects the number of hours worked by the worker during a reference period”.
Lord Goddard of Stockport, Liberal Democrat, proposed an amendment in the House of Lords this week that this should become a right for the worker to request guaranteed hours, rather than the employer’s duty to offer them.
Zero-hours contracts
He told the House of Lords: “Although we recognise that some workers do not want precarious zero-hours contracts, this should not come at the expense of sectors where flexibility is essential and many workers are content with those arrangements.
“This [amendment] would balance security for workers with necessary flexibility for employers in sectors that rely on flexibility.
“These include seasonal, tourism-related and agricultural workers, as well as hospitality, retail, theatre and other industries where work patterns are inherently dynamic and demands fluctuate. The amendment would ensure that the new provisions are adaptable enough to function effectively across all those employment settings.”
He added that if an employee made a formal request, the employer would be compelled to make an offer of guaranteed hours. The amendment would still avoid placing a “universal obligation” on all employers to offer guaranteed hours in every instance.
However, the Young Women’s Trust charity warned that placing the obligation onto the employee to ask for guaranteed hours would lead to “continued exploitation and financial insecurity” for workers.
Its research has shown that 45% of young women – who are disproportionately likely to be on zero-hours contracts – have already put up with unfair treatment while in insecure work as they were worried they would not get further shifts.
Claire Reindorp, chief executive at Young Women’s Trust, said: “We’re talking about watering down protections for some of our youngest and most poorly-treated workers.
“The ban on zero-hours contracts was a centrepiece of the government’s promise to upgrade workers’ rights – but this amendment risks undermining that by completely shifting the power back to employers. This leaves young women fighting for a right to secure working contracts.
“We know that young women are more likely to be working in insecure work and are already feeling trapped, unable to plan for their futures and scared of speaking up for their rights for fear of losing the shifts they desperately need.
“We must not squander this opportunity to rebalance power in the workplace and transform the lives of thousands of young women.”
The proposed amendment was supported by 264 peers and 158 were against.
Unless the amendment is later removed when the Bill returns to the House of Commons, this “request and must grant” route to guaranteed hours will be introduced when it becomes law.
Reward, compensation and benefits opportunities
Browse all comp and benefits jobs
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
