Let us know about free updates
UK Employment Simply sign up for Myft Digest and it will be delivered directly to your inbox.
Under the government’s new Workers’ Rights Act, UK employers can avoid the burden of providing and paying staff guaranteed working hours if they have a trade with unions.
The governmental amendment to the flagship employment rights bill creates potential sculpture from the intended prohibition of “exploitative” zero-hour contracts with written collective agreements between an employer and one or more independent unions.
The change could create strong incentives for employers in the low-wage sector to enter into collective bargaining arrangements with unions given widespread concerns about the complexity and practical difficulties of applying the new rules. They were published early Wednesday amid more than 200 amendments to the Workers’ Rights Act.
“Having a union (certification agreement) is a very strong incentive,” said Michael Ford, the employment law KC, who was seeking this change. He raises concerns that rules are virtually unfeasible in some sectors, potentially backfiring workers with caring responsibility, meaning they have not been able to commit at normal times.
The employment bill includes a broader scope of change to strengthen union rights. The amendments provide details of measures that will make it easier for unions to access the workplace and gain collective bargaining rights with employers, including digital access, and make strike action faster and easier.
The right to contract, which reflects the regular hours of workers, is one of the important measures in the bill, with business hours and revenues often fluctuating from month to month, making it difficult to budget or borrow mortgages.
The intent is to require employers to provide workers with contracts that reflect normal working patterns. To give them reasonable notice of shifts. We compensate for them when shifts are cancelled in a short period of time. Amendments released this week revealed that the provisions include agency workers, but exact details have not yet been determined.
Employers say they support the fundamental principle of providing more security to workers. However, they added that it is extremely difficult to match the seasonal or unpredictable nature of demand in many sectors, including increasing pre-Christmas retail, weather-dependent ice cream parlors, and supplying teachers to cover unexpected illnesses.
Due to these concerns, important details of the proposal (which workers will cover, how normal times will be assessed, etc.) have not yet been determined. Instead, provisions that have already been encountered in dozens of pages give the Minister the authority to determine details in later regulations.
Caspar Glyn KC, chairman of the Association of Employment Bar Associations, said the draft provisions were “very complicated” and “in practice unfeasible” and that it is nearly impossible for individual workers to enforce in court.
“This is the most cumbersome thing I’ve ever seen under employment law,” said Darren Newman, an employment lawyer and consultant. Opting out of employers who have reached an agreement with the union “makes sense,” he added, noting that local governments employing low-hour workers at schools and elsewhere may already have agreements.
To obtain a carve-out, the collective contract must contain “explicitly excluded” or “explicitly replace” conditions. These terms must also be incorporated into the worker’s contract and notified in writing.
Nicola Smith, Director of Policy at the Trade Union Conference, said the union’s umbrella organizations welcomed the change. He said this is an opportunity for employers to “recognise the benefits of collective bargaining,” exceeding the minimum requirements of the law.
