header-logo header-logo

A poor fit

17 September 2015 / Janet Barlow , Rebecca Mason
Issue: 7668 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail
nlj_7668_barlow

One person’s flexibility is another person’s insecurity: Rebecca Mason & Janet Barlow examine the reforms surrounding zero hour contracts

The much debated pre-election hot topic of zero hours contracts finally saw a reform to the law on 26 March under the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015.

Section 153 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 amends the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) by inserting a new s 27A banning the use of exclusivity clauses and for the first time giving a statutory definition of a zero hours contract.

In this article we shall be considering the implication of this ban and shall examine this new definition and whether it goes any way to helping establish employment status; a requisite for full employment protection.

Exclusivity

Under s 27A of ERA 1996 exclusivity terms are now unenforceable in zero hours contracts.

Despite all the publicity surrounding the use of such contracts, banning exclusivity clauses does little to improve the rights of those individuals working under them. Although accurate statistics are not available for

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Fieldfisher Ireland LLP—Dermot McEvoy

Fieldfisher Ireland LLP—Dermot McEvoy

Dublin disputes team announces strategic partner appointment

DWF—four appointments

DWF—four appointments

Firm strengthens in-house advocacy with four new pupil appointments

Shakespeare Martineau—Fergus Spowart & Fin Campbell

Shakespeare Martineau—Fergus Spowart & Fin Campbell

Scottish practice expands with new solicitor hire and trainee qualification

NEWS
MPs have expressed disappointment after the government confirmed it will not consider updating the parental leave system until at least 2027
In July, the Supreme Court quashed the convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo, ruling that trial judges had wrongly directed juries to treat profit-motivated Libor submissions as inherently dishonest. In this week’s NLJ, David Stern and James Fletcher of 5 St Andrew’s Hill reflect on the decision
In this week's issue of NLJ, Emma Brunning and Dharshica Thanarajasingham of Birketts unpack the high-conflict financial remedy case TF v SF [2025] EWHC 1659 (Fam). The husband’s conduct—described by the judge as a ‘masterclass in gaslighting’—included hiding a £9.5m deferred payment from the sale of a port acquired post-separation. Despite his claims that the port was non-matrimonial, the court found its value rooted in marital assets and efforts
In his latest 'Civil way' column for this week's NLJ, Stephen Gold delivers a witty roundup of procedural updates and judicial oddities. From the rise in litigant-in-person hourly rates (£24 from October) to the Supreme Court’s venue hire options (canapés in Courtroom 1, anyone?), Gold blends legal insight with dry humour
David Bailey-Vella of Davis Woolfe and chair of the Association of Costs Lawyers explores the new costs budgeting light pilot scheme in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll