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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll