Coming into force 26 May 2015, section 153 of the 2015 Act bans the use of exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts. Further regulations are awaited dealing with the anti-avoidance aspects.
Thank you to Daniel Barnett’s employment law bulletin for the update.
Exclusivity clauses in zero hour contracts 10 June 2015
Acas has published some useful information regarding the recent change in legislation making clauses that prohibit a worker on zero hours contracts from carrying out work for another employer unenforceable.
Legislation came into force on 26 May making clauses that prohibit a worker on zero hours contracts from carrying out work for another employer unenforceable.
Zero-hours contracts may still suit some people who want occasional earnings and are able to be entirely flexible about when they work. However, the unpredictable nature of working times means that they won't be for everyone.
If you are considering taking on people on a zero-hours basis, it's important to be aware of your responsibilities as an employer and to set out the terms of any contract clearly.
Key points:
Zero hours contracts normally mean there is no obligation for employers to offer work, or for workers to accept it. Most zero hours contracts will give staff 'worker' employment status. Zero hours workers have the same employment rights as regular workers, although they may have breaks in their contracts, which affect rights that accrue over time. Zero hours workers are entitled to annual leave , the National Minimum Wage and pay for work-related travel in the same way as regular workers.
Read more from Acas
Jersey's Royal Court sheds light on zero hours contracts 14 July 2015
With a headline like that we could be talking potatoes but no, a court has held that the key to identifying a genuine zero hours contract is whether there is mutuality of obligation.
Legal Week Law has written a useful summary of the case.
The Royal Court of Jersey has held in Marchem (Europe) Limited v Carre that the key to identifying a genuine zero hours contract is whether there is mutuality of obligation. This means not only that the employer has an obligation to offer work, but that the employee is obliged to accept that offer. Ms Carre was a bookkeeper who had been engaged by Marchem on 7 July 2012 under the terms of a standard contract that stated that it was a "zero hours" contract. Initially she worked less than eight hours per week alongside another job, but in early 2013 she resigned from her other employment and requested additional hours from Marchem. In April 2013 the following words were inserted into the contract "[w]e shall offer you a minimum of 30 hours of extended work per week…". Ms Carre's employment was terminated on 6 January 2014 and she subsequently lodged a claim for unfair dismissal. Marchem defended the claim on the grounds that she was a zero hours worker, not an employee, and therefore was not protected against unfair dismissal The JET identified the test of a genuine zero hours contract as there being no mutuality of obligation, meaning that the employer is not obliged to provide work and the employee is not obliged to carry it out. It found that in this case there was a genuine expectation of provision of work by Marchem on the part of Ms Carre; therefore, she was an employee and had the benefit of protection from unfair dismissal. The Tribunal commented that Marchem's director had "misunderstood the nature of a 'zero hours' contract and had instead negotiated a contract of employment which gave Ms Carre the right to work flexibly. This error serves as a reminder to employers to seek legal advice before trying to enter into 'zero hours' contracts."
CIPP Policy News Journal
25/04/2016, Page 130 of 453
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker