header-logo header-logo

Zero tolerance

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

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