Contract hero or Unfair Zero? whatever you believe, the zero hour contract has certainly made its mark in UK Employment Law and the press.
Also termed as casual contracts, no obligation contracts and flexible agreements. They are used by many employers including big brands such as Mcdonalds and Sports Direct.
The care industry and the food and beverage industry survive on these contracts which they claim allows them and workers to be flexible.
Until recently staff who worked under a zero hours contract had very little rights in an employment tribunal because an employer had no obligation to provide them with work. This meant that they would often be classed as workers and not employees for the purposes of Employment Law Act and as a result could not make claims such as unfair dismissal.
The problem was that these contracts were not always as flexible as they portrayed. Many zero hour contracts included an exclusivity clause which forbade workers to work for other employers. A consequence of such a clause was that it stopped workers from boosting their income with additional work. That was until 26th May when exclusivity clauses in zero hour contracts were banned.
Last week zero hour contract workers gained another victory. As of the 11th January 2016 workers who receive unfair treatment up to and including dismissal resulting from an exclusivity clause can now bring a claim in an employment tribunal. This claim can be brought by a zero hours worker regardless of their length of service. So employers need to be careful about chastising workers because they have been working for someone else.
The information in this blog is not intended to constitute legal advice. However, If you use zero hour contracts in your business and you are unsure about exclusivity clauses please seek expert advice.