The Employment Rights Bill is dividing opinion as initial amendments are revealed. Commentary from the employment sector is selected to reflect current concerns.
The Agency Worker Rules are an unwanted burden
Matt Wort, Employment Law Specialist at Anthony Collins
“Expanding the right to guaranteed hour to all agency workers will present challenges to employers who rely heavily on atypical employees, but there will at least be more certainty.” Previously, some employers may have used agency workers in order to avoid the compliance risk associated with zero-hours contract. This option is no longer available.
“Employers must wait until the details of the new regime are known. The government has promised draft regulations. In the meantime, employers should evaluate the use of agency workers, and zero-hour contracting, and consider offering permanent contracts to their employees in the future. Many employers in the social and health care sectors will find the new rules on agency workers and zero-hours contract employees a burden. The government, however, has stated that they only want to ban exploitative zero hour contracts.
Employers who wish to lay off 20 or more workers will be subject to stricter procedures, including employee consultation. They could face penalties if they fail to comply. This may prevent unfair redundancy procedures, but it is not helpful to organisations that are struggling to keep up with rising costs and might have to make redundancies in order to stay viable.”
Further amendments needed
Alexandra Hall Chen, Principal Policy Advisor for Employment at the Institute of Directors
The changes announced today are not addressing the areas that are most important to employers.
If the growth mission of the government is not to be undermined, then the bill needs to undergo substantial amendments. Our data show that expectations of directors regarding headcount have fallen to levels last seen during the Covid pandemic. “Urgent and substantive government action is required to restore confidence in business hiring.”
The Institute of Directors proposed four changes to the Employment Rights Bill in February that would have a significant impact on the hiring process.
- Modify the proposed introduction of additional protections for unfair dismissal to only apply after six months rather than from day one.
- Increase the planned period of reference for the entitlement to guarantee hours to 52-weeks, and give employees the right to request a contract that reflects the hours they regularly work, instead of being offered one.
- Keep a one-day waiting period before employees are eligible to receive Statutory Sick pay (SSP).
- Keep existing thresholds in place for the statutory recognition trade unions.
Essential steps forward
Vicky Walker is the group director for people at Westfield Health
We welcome the focus on improving protections against unfair dismissals, and flexible working arrangements for those who have other responsibilities. This includes working parents, caregivers and others with responsibilities.
The bill recognizes that workers, and especially parents, are increasingly looking for ways to balance work and family life without sacrificing their productivity. We know that employees are more engaged, loyal and committed when they feel trusted and supported in managing their work/life balance. This helps businesses attract new talent, and it improves retention. These are two key objectives in today’s highly competitive labour market.
The right to paternity and the clause that requires companies with over 250 employees to disclose information on their parental leave policies and pay is an important step towards achieving gender equality in caring responsibilities. This change is not only beneficial to fathers, but also non-birthing mothers. It will help create a more inclusive workforce that benefits both families and organizations.
“Draconian, and unnecessary”
Dan Pollard is a partner in the law firm Charles Russell Speechlys
“This is great news for employment attorneys, but unfortunately not for employers.” Labour, after hints the proposals could be watered-down, has reaffirmed its commitment to protecting workers’ rights even at the expense of business.
The bill grants the current government significant powers to intervene in employment disputes. The bill gives the government significant powers to intervene in employment disputes.
The government can also intervene in any private employment dispute if it so wishes, and employers will be forced to pay legal fees to the government. This is a very draconian way to use the power of government and will put enormous pressure on employers.
‘Punitive legislation’
Dave Chaplin is the CEO of ContractorCalculator, a contracting authority.
There are concerns about false self-employment. Unscrupulous companies may try to get around the new rules. This may happen for a minority of workers. However, there is concern that the problem could be overstated and that it will lead to a sledgehammer-like approach in order to crack the nut.
“Truly independent contractors and consultants chose independence over benefits, rights and protections. They do not feel vulnerable or exploited, and they value their flexibility and autonomy. They don’t want to be forced to work in a false job.
“We need to find a balance that works for everyone if Labour is to grow the economy. The truly self-employed are vital to this mission and should be allowed to thrive without being hindered by overreaching laws.”
The government must stick to its guns
Ben Harrison is the director of the Work Foundation, Lancaster University
It is vital to improve job quality in a time when there are record levels of sickness, shortages of workers and a growing number of young people who have no work or education. We can’t afford to have a system which traps people into precarious work or forces them out of the workforce altogether.
Subscribe to our weekly HR news and guidance
Every Wednesday, receive the Personnel Today Direct newsletter.
