header-logo header-logo

05 September 2013 / Sarah Johnson
Issue: 7574 / Categories: Opinion , Employment
printer mail-detail

Zero tolerance

nlj_7574_06_0

Should we call time on zero hours contracts, asks Sarah Johnson

Zero hours contracts hit the headlines recently with calls for a ban from some unions. Why all the fuss?

Increasing numbers is one reason. Around one million people in the UK (3–4% of the labour force) now work on zero hours contracts, according to research by the Chartered Institute of Personnel Development (CIPD); about four times more than recent figures from the Office for National Statistics suggested. Although increasingly common, there is some uncertainty about what they are.

What is a zero hours contract?

Zero hours contracts have no strict legal definition. Those working under them may be employees, workers or self-employed. Legal status depends on how the relationship works. Key features are that the individual can be called upon as required, with no set hours, being paid only for work done.

Employment status requires mutuality of obligation (the employer’s obligation to offer work and the employee’s to accept it). Contract wording is not conclusive; tribunals scrutinise how things work in practice if

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll