The employer's guide to zero-hours contracts


Hi, I believe that due to the widespread of excessive usage of forced zero hour contracts, the forced part should be illegal. I believe that employers should make it clear to their candidates that ...

Read More Attila
Add a comment

Given recent press coverage and the trend for businesses being 'named and shamed', it is now more important than ever for them to evaluate whether they need to reduce the risks associated with zero-hours contracts.

Here are some key issues to bear in mind over the coming weeks.

Can employers still get round the rules?

The Conservatives have proposed an exclusivity ban (so zero-hours workers can’t be prevented from working for anyone else) and anti-avoidance measures that will give workers the protection of being able to bring tribunal claims if they are subjected to detrimental treatment (such as having their hours cut) after also working for other businesses.

But what about employers using a clause that is not strictly an exclusivity clause, but that states the worker must seek the company’s consent before he or she works for anyone else? The answer is: no, this cannot be used as the legislation prevents it. 

What about another sort of ‘pseudo exclusivity clause’ stating the worker cannot work for a competitor, or cannot do so without consent? The answer: it would be surprising if the legislation prevents such provisions although on the face of it, it could be argued that it does. 

However, with the current employment tribunal fees a zero-hours worker may not be in a position financially to enforce their right.

Labour has proposed that those who work regular hours for more than 12 weeks will have a right to a regular contract, but what is meant by ‘regular hours’ during 12 weeks? Until further detail is released it seems employers could circumvent the rules by deliberately not offering regular hours to employees over this time frame.

What should employers using zero-hours contracts do?

Given that exclusivity bans are likely to come into force (whichever party wins the election), employers should assess whether current zero-hours contracts contain exclusivity clauses and if so why were they included. If they were present as a matter of course but are not important to the company it should inform workers that it will not be enforcing them. 

If the company relies heavily on the exclusivity clause it could consider inserting instead the 'pseudo exclusivity' clause in relation to competitors: but be warned – this has not been tested. 

Employers could also consider alternatives, putting the worker on a normal permanent employment contract specifying their hours for instance. The business could also consider fixed-term contracts or agency worker arrangements if these will take them through a busy period. 

Be careful about renewing a fixed-term contract however – successive renewals can result in the fixed-term contract becoming a permanent contract. Also agency worker arrangements may not provide as much flexibility as companies might think. For instance, agency workers have the right to the same pay and other basic working conditions as equivalent permanent staff after a 12-week qualifying period. 

Issues also still remain over whether those engaged under zero-hours contracts are employees (with associated rights such as unfair dismissal rights after two years' service) or casual workers with less legal protection.  

This depends on how the contract is drafted and how it is operated in practice. To avoid employment rights challenges, use a carefully drafted contract that accurately reflects the relationship between the company and the worker. Beware of getting into a pattern of regularly offering work and do not require the worker to accept each and every assignment (to ensure there is no mutuality of obligation) – such steps will help protect true ‘casual worker’ status.

Priya Chanda-Wilson is a solicitor at employment law specialists Doyle Clayton


Hi, I believe that due to the widespread of excessive usage of forced zero hour contracts, the forced part should be illegal. I believe that employers should make it clear to their candidates that the contract would be zero hours in which case the employees (NOT JUST THE ONES CALLED WORKERS!!!!!) are not obliged to accept any shift offered. Employers with thousands of staff like Wetherspoons and McDonald's should be regulated by letting them have only a percentage of staff on zero hour contracts, and employers should not be legally state that 'all o their workforce is on zero hours contracts'. I believe that when a contract or any documents about their staff states 'full time', that should rule out that it's a zero hour contract as zero hour contracts are meant to be casual arrangements. Zero hour contract employees should be offered a job (instead of just given a rota) and the employer SHOULD be waiting for who picks up the offered shifts. If no no-one, that is the employers problem!

Change the CAPTCHA codeSpeak the CAPTCHA code

All comments are moderated and may take a while to appear.