The vulnerability of zero-hours (and agency) workers is an issue that can serve as a proverbial dog whistle to parties on either side of the parliamentary aisle. However, not all zero-hours workers would consider themselves vulnerable; for some staff, flexibility can be a useful way of working according to their needs. On the other hand, for many workers on unpredictable contracts, it’s not a choice but an economic necessity in the absence of any permanent work. 

Many would have seen that in February 2023, the Government announced its support for the Workers (Predictable Terms and Conditions) Bill 2022-23. It is currently being debated in the House of Lords and we would expect it to come into law at some point in 2024.

What rights does this Bill introduce?

The right for workers to request a change to their hours to create a more predictable pattern of work IF the following circumstances apply:

• There is a lack of predictability in relation to hours of work
• The change relates to the worker’s work pattern
• The purpose of the change is to get a more predictable work pattern

Currently, however, there is no definition of predictability (except in relation to fixed-term contracts of 12 months or less) in the Bill. According to the Bill, the unpredictable pattern can include:

• Number of hours worked
• The days of the week or times of the day
• The period they are contracted to work

Who would qualify?

As with the current right to request flexible working, the Bill requires 26 weeks of continuous service before a worker can make an application for a predictable work pattern. 

Could an employer reject the request?

An employer will be able to reject the application on the following grounds:

• Burden of additional costs
• Detrimental effect on the ability to meet customer demand
• Detrimental impact on recruitment of staff
• Detrimental impact on other aspects of the employer’s business
• Insufficiency of work during the periods the worker proposes to work
• Planned structural changes

Other grounds that may be specified in the regulations.  

A worker will be able to make two requests in any year. 

Agency workers

The Bill will also apply to agency workers. They could apply to their temporary work agency or, importantly, to a hirer. The right and relevant procedure are the same as for workers as outlined above.

 Implications of this Bill?

While we would all applaud assisting workers who are vulnerable to unscrupulous employers, as we noted above, the issue is often more nuanced in practice. Organisations are dependent on the zero-hours model because of their sector and its needs. Is this Bill a rather mixed blessing and if so, how do organisations prepare for it?

As with flexible working, this is a right to request and not a right to predictable terms. Not all workers will either want to request a change and nor will all be eligible. The Government has left sufficient grounds with 'wiggle room' for most organisations to reject requests. They mirror the objections to flexible working requests which the Trades Union Congress (TUC) have lobbied hard (unsuccessfully) to reduce. 

That said, the Bill does prompt a conversation about whether our reliance on zero-hours contracts over the last five to ten years should be curbed in some way. We would advise that organisations have this conversation and address where zero-hours contracts are used. 

Are staff on zero-hours contracts given regular work and if so, would another form of contract be appropriate? For example, a guaranteed hours contract?

Alternatively, are zero-hour staff used sporadically and inconsistently? It may be time to address these workers and whether this situation works for them. If not, then it may be more appropriate to terminate their contracts and just engage them for specific assignments only. Remember, under the Harpur decision as it currently stands, zero-hour employees are still entitled to accrue holiday when they are not working so that could be a further reason to review the working arrangements.