header-logo header-logo

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

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

WSP Solicitors—Amie Williamson

WSP Solicitors—Amie Williamson

Gloucestershire firm boosts residential conveyancing team

mfg Solicitors—Andrew Johnson

mfg Solicitors—Andrew Johnson

Firm strengthens corporate team in Worcester with new hire

London Market FOIL—Ling Ong

London Market FOIL—Ling Ong

Weightmans partner appointed president of London Market Forum of Insurance Lawyers

NEWS
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
The long-awaited Getty Images v Stability AI judgment arrived at the end of last year—but not with the seismic impact many expected. In this week's issue of NLJ, experts from Arnold & Porter dissect a ruling that is ‘historic’ yet tightly confined
The UK Supreme Court may be deciding fewer cases, but its impact in 2025 was anything but muted. In this week's NLJ, Professor Emeritus Brice Dickson of Queen’s University Belfast reviews a year marked by historically low output, a striking rise in jointly authored judgments, and a continued decline in dissent. High-profile rulings on biological sex under the Equality Act, public access to Dartmoor, and fairness in sexual offence trials ensured the court’s voice carried far beyond the Strand
back-to-top-scroll