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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
The legal profession’s claim to be a ‘guardian of fairness’ is under scrutiny after stark findings on gender imbalance and opaque progression. Writing in NLJ this week, Joshua Purser of No5 Barristers’ Chambers and Govindi Deerasinghe of Global 50/50 warn that leadership remains dominated by a narrow elite, with men holding 71% of top court roles
A legal challenge to police disclosure rules has failed, reinforcing a push for transparency in policing. In NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth examines a case where the Metropolitan Police required officers to declare membership of groups like the Freemasons
Bereavement leave is undergoing a quiet but profound transformation. Writing in NLJ this week, Robert Hargreaves of York St John University explains how the Employment Rights Act 2025 introduces a day-one right to leave for a wider range of losses, alongside new provisions for pregnancy loss and bereaved partners
Courts are beginning to grapple with whether AI-generated material is legally privileged—and the answers are mixed. In this week's issue of NLJ, Stacie Bourton, Tom Whittaker & Beata Kolodziej of Burges Salmon examine US rulings showing how easily privilege can be lost
New guidance seeks to bring order to the growing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Minesh Tanna and David Bridge of Simmons & Simmons set out a framework stressing ‘transparency’, ‘explainability’ and ‘reliability’
back-to-top-scroll