header-logo header-logo

10 October 2024
Issue: 8090 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Tribunals , Equality
printer mail-detail

Labour’s Bill on employment rights strikes positive notes with lawyers

Lawyers have broadly welcomed the Employment Rights Bill, but warned of some unintended consequences

The Bill, introduced this week, creates a right to paternity and parental leave and protection from unfair dismissal from the first day in the job. It strengthens flexible working rights and introduces a right to bereavement leave from day one, bans most zero-hours contracts, and aims to end the practice of ‘fire and rehire’ whereby employers terminate contracts and re-recruit employees on less favourable terms.

It introduces a statutory probation period for new employees—the government proposes nine months’ probation, but will consult on the length.

The Bill also strengthens statutory sick pay, removing the lower earnings limit and cutting out the waiting period before sick pay begins.

Francesca Lopez (pictured), senior associate, employment, Kingsley Napley, said: ‘The radical changes to UK employment law which Labour promised are now well and truly underway.

‘These changes are laudable—there is no dispute about that—but they do have potentially serious unintended consequences. Will the day one rights to claim unfair dismissal mean that some employers will steer away from recruiting candidates that are not the obvious “right fit” for the role? Discrimination legislation continues to provide protection but will increased caution make it harder for candidates that are younger/older, have less relevant experience, have been on a career break, require more training/supervision or have childcare/caring responsibilities to get jobs?

‘All workers will be entitled to flexible working by default and employers will have to accommodate requests “as far as reasonable”. But how will reasonableness be assessed? No guidance has been provided as yet, and without it, businesses may struggle to apply the changes in context and/or face increased litigation if they refuse requests.’

Lopez said the proposals ‘undoubtedly increase the chance of employment disputes, when the changes come into effect in two years’ time, and employers need to brace themselves accordingly’.

Elizabeth Watt, employment solicitor, WSP Solicitors, offered reassurance for employers, emphasising not only that the reforms may not come into force for ‘years’ but that ‘increasing statutory sick pay and maternity and paternity pay will impose no additional cost to their company.

‘As in the current system, all statutory pay is paid by government’.

Extra costs for employers could arise, however, in the shape of the human resources processes that will need to be reviewed, implemented and updated, Watt said. ‘There will be lots of contractual changes that businesses will need to consider, which could cost some companies thousands.’

On potential tribunal claims, Watt said: ‘The Bill could lessen tribunal claims thanks to having a clearer piece of legislation in place however, countering this argument is the new Workers Protection Act, which comes into law on 26 October and could open the floodgates to a surge in tribunal claims.’

Anna Dabek, partner, Anthony Collins, noted that the proposals ‘stopped short of an outright ban on zero hours contracts.

‘Workers on low hours contracts will be given the right to request predictable hours if they have worked a period of regular hours. This enables those workers who chose to remain on zero hours contracts the option to do so. The government has made room for choice, which is vital for sectors like health and social care for whom zero-hour contracts are a bed-rock for staff supply.’

Issue: 8090 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Tribunals , Equality
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

From first-generation student to trailblazing president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, John McElroy of Fieldfisher reflects on resilience, identity and the power of bringing your whole self to the law

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Planning and environment team expands with partner hire in Manchester

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Firm appoints chief operating officer to strengthen leadership team

NEWS
A landmark Supreme Court ruling has underscored the sweeping reach of UK sanctions. In NLJ this week, Brónagh Adams and Harriet Campbell of Penningtons Manches Cooper say the regime is a ‘blunt instrument’ requiring only a factual, not causal, link to restricted goods
Fraud claims are surging, with England and Wales increasingly the forum of choice for global disputes. Writing in NLJ this week, Jon Felce of Cooke, Young & Keidan reports claims have risen sharply, with fraud now a major share of litigation and costing billions worldwide
Litigators digesting Mazur are being urged to tighten oversight and compliance. In his latest 'Insider' column for NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School provides a cut out and keep guide to the ruling’s core test: whether an unauthorised individual is ‘in truth acting on behalf of the authorised individual’
Conflicting county court rulings have left landlords uncertain over whether they can force entry after tenants refuse access. In this week's NLJ, Edward Blakeney and Ashpen Rajah of Falcon Chambers outline a split: some judges permit it under CPR 70.2A, others insist only Parliament can authorise such powers
A wave of scandals has reignited debate over misconduct in public office, criticised as unclear and inconsistently applied. Writing in NLJ this week, Alice Lepeuple of WilmerHale says the offence’s ‘vagueness, overbreadth & inconsistent deployment’ have undermined confidence
back-to-top-scroll