Exclusivity Terms in Zero Hours Contracts (Redress) Regulations 2015
The Earl of Courtown
That the Grand Committee do consider the Exclusivity Terms in Zero Hours Contracts (Redress) Regulations 2015.
Relevant document: 7th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, on 26 May this year, the Government commenced the provision introduced by the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 which renders unenforceable the use of exclusivity terms in zero-hours contracts. As a result, individuals can now ignore any exclusivity term in their zero-hours contract. Once these regulations commence, any employer who treats someone on a zero-hours contract unfairly simply for taking a job elsewhere could face an employment tribunal and the possibility of paying compensation.
The use of exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts is wrong. No one on this type of contract should be prevented from boosting their income if they want to. While the Government anticipate that only a minority of employers are likely to ignore the ban, I am confident that we all agree that a route of redress is a welcome measure. The regulations before the Committee create a route of redress for an individual on a zero-hours contract who suffers a detriment or is unfairly dismissed as a result of doing work under another contract or arrangement. They allow that individual to make a complaint to an employment tribunal and be awarded compensation if their complaint is upheld.
These regulations have been drafted as a result of the Government’s consultation. A clear majority of 71% of respondents to last summer’s consultation supported redress via an employment tribunal. The regulations create a deterrent for employers, making them think twice about ignoring the law. In addition, we will be laying an order that will ensure that those individuals on zero-hours contracts wishing to make a complaint will benefit from the early conciliation regime. This is in line with other employment protections.
Zero-hours contracts have a place in today’s labour market. For individuals who cannot commit to regular hours, they can provide a pathway into employment. That is why many people, young and old, choose to work in this way. These contracts provide choice and the ability to combine work and other commitments. But the use of exclusivity clauses in these contracts is wrong and that is why Government have banned them. These regulations strengthen that ban, adding another layer of protection for individuals and ensuring that employers cannot simply ignore the law. By creating a route of redress, individuals will have the right to make a complaint to an employment tribunal if they are dismissed or treated unfairly as a result of their employer attempting to demand exclusivity. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these regulations. He was not, I think, involved in the previous Government’s detailed work on the Bill from which these regulations stem. In that sense perhaps he could be forgiven for not really getting to the heart of the issue before us. While I reluctantly agree that these regulations are a step in the right direction, I hope to persuade him that they are nothing like what was intended when the matter was debated in the Bill to which he referred. The Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act should have outlawed people being discriminated against for having more than one zero-hours contract. Instead, it offers a false choice for those who are affected to seek redress—at their cost, let us be clear—through the employment tribunal system.
The key issue I would like the Minister to focus on is that these regulations do not in fact ban exclusivity clauses. They will exist after these regulations go through and I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm that. Individuals will not have many rights in terms of how they get redress against that, as I will explain. As I said, the regulations represent a small step in the right direction but they will not provide zero-hours workers with effective protection. The Government’s proposals really fail to address the main abuses expressed by those who have studied this issue—and, indeed, the points that were raised when the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill was discussed. They are little more than window dressing. The Minister said that the abuse of zero-hours contract workers seeking a second job was wrong but he has not taken the opportunity to outlaw it.
There are a number of points worth making. The regulations use a much narrower definition of zero-hours workers than is allowed for in the Act. I would be grateful if the Minister will confirm that the Act would permit the Government to extend the ban to individuals who are employed in freelance arrangements, for instance, but are economically dependent on a limited number of employers. The Government have decided not to act to protect this group—perhaps the Minister will explain why.
In March 2015, the coalition Government indicated that they were minded to extend the ban on exclusivity clauses to all workers, not just those on zero-hours contracts, who earn less than £20 an hour. The aim expressed then was to ensure that those employed in more insecure and lower-paid forms of work could not be forced to remain available for one employer but could seek employment from a range of employers. This is a very good idea and we welcomed it at the time. The Government seem to have backtracked on that approach. Will the Minister explain the thinking behind that decision?
The Government claim that providing a right for zero-hours contract workers to go to an employment tribunal and, after the next regulations come forward, a chance to go into conciliation services using a fast-track system, will actively deter employers from using exclusivity clauses. I think the Minister said that it would make employers “think twice” before acting. That seems a very weak form of protection. They should not be thinking about this at all. The idea that they should think twice about it is rather risible.
We are talking here about very poorly paid employees—who often are not paid at all because they do not get called in for work—and about those employed on zero-hours contracts in any way having to pay up to £1,200 for any claim for unfair dismissal. As well as being low-paid and not being offered the right possibility of a range of work, they will have to pay £1,200 upfront in order to take this forward. Obviously, if they want to do a detriment claim it is £390, but I think even that would be difficult.
The MoJ statistics reveal that only around two-fifths of individuals who have applied for a remission in employment tribunals have been successful. This low success rate is well understood to be due to the fact that remission claims have to be based on household income rather than the income of the individual concerned. The individual has a choice to make if he or she has a partner who is working because the cut-off point at which they will be able to do a remission may well have been breached by the partner’s earnings, and the cost of going themselves is £1,200. It is a rock and a hard place.
Finally on this catalogue of defects in the process, the regulations make it clear that any compensation awards will actually be very limited because they have to be linked to losses or expenses which the individual incurred as a result of the employer’s actions. A zero-hours contract worker is going to find it rather difficult to prove that they incurred any loss. Individuals such as hotel and bar staff, many of whom make up this group, are often working on a series of zero-hours contracts with different employers. Under these contracts, they have no legal rights to ongoing employment so it is very difficult for them to prove that if they had not remained available to work for employer A they would have been guaranteed a certain amount of pay from employer B. This test will also trip up a number of people.
A lot of rethinking is required in this area if we are going to make this stack up in any sense to the issues that were raised by the Minister. He thought that these regulations have resolved matters but I think they are actually making things worse. What is needed is a new think about redress in matters of this nature. What we really need is legislation that includes those on zero-hours contracts, as well as other people in casual employment, to make sure that they have the basic employment rights—including, for example, redundancy pay, the right to request flexible hours, and the right to return to work following maternity or paternity leave—which are often not available in these areas because of a misunderstanding of the law, although technically employees are entitled to them. That could be rolled back into an overarching arrangement around issues to do with exclusivity terms. As I said, these regulations are a step in the right direction but it is really a very small step.
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for even reluctantly agreeing that this is a step in the right direction. He made a number of points, which I will deal with. If I do not deal with them, I will of course write to him. We agree that these regulations are a welcome step for those on zero-hours contracts. We must, however, send a message to the minority of employers who may attempt to ignore the exclusivity ban. As such, it is important that the Government create this additional layer of protection for individuals.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, suggested that exclusivity still exists. No, an individual cannot be prevented from looking for work elsewhere and should simply ignore the exclusivity terms made by the employer. The individual has no obligation to inform the employer. We understand that employers could potentially offer no further work as a result of finding out that the individual has worked elsewhere, and that is why it is important that these redress regulations create a route of redress for individuals who suffer a detriment in such a case.
The noble Lord also asked why we have backtracked on the income threshold. This Government’s first priority was to introduce the ban on exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts. As I said earlier, we did this on 26 May this year. Our next priority was to introduce a route of redress to ensure that individuals on zero-hours contracts with exclusivity clauses were protected from employers who dismissed them or subjected them to unfair treatment if they sought work elsewhere. We are introducing that route of redress now.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. This is the first time that I have taken part in a Grand Committee. He said that pressure is put on people to comply, and an ordinary worker may find the legal redress a little confusing. Do the regulations contain a provision to deal with situations where emotional pressure is put on an individual who may not have an official exclusivity contract but it is understood that if they contravene the contract and go to work elsewhere they will not be asked to work again?
The Earl of Courtown
I think that, in a nutshell, the noble Baroness is talking about protection for the vulnerable worker. I cannot give her an answer at this moment but I will write to her.
Concerning the income threshold, during the last Parliament the Government announced the idea of extending the ban on exclusivity clauses to contracts that did not guarantee a set income threshold. We will now look at this aspect further, considering any evidence of avoidance of the ban. To date, the Government have seen no evidence of employers finding ways to get round the ban on exclusivity clauses.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked why the self-employed are not covered. The exclusivity ban protects all employees and workers who have exclusivity terms included as part of their zero-hours contract—that is, a contract which does not guarantee paid hours of work. These provisions do not cover those who are genuinely self-employed and undertake work on a zero-hours contract arrangement. For example, a self-employed contractor might take up work offered on a zero-hours basis from a number of regular clients but remain self-employed. This is because self-employed individuals will negotiate their own terms as part of their contractual arrangements with their clients.
The noble Lord also raised the important issue of employment tribunal fees and said that they represented a prohibitive cost for those on zero-hour contracts. As in the case of any other complaint submitted to an employment tribunal, anyone who feels that they cannot afford to pay the associated costs can make an application for a fee remission—that is, to have the fees waived or reduced. An individual can apply for remission of the fee-paying stage and so would not be out of pocket. Complainants who are in receipt of universal credit and have less than £3,000 in savings and gross annual earnings of less than £6,000 would automatically qualify for remission of fees. Complainants will qualify for full remission of their employment tribunal fees if they have savings of less than £3,000 and are in receipt of certain qualifying benefits, such as income-based jobseeker’s allowance or income support. They may also qualify for full or partial remission if their household savings and gross income fall below or within a specified threshold.
The noble Lord also mentioned compensation. We do not believe that the regulations should stipulate the level of compensation to be awarded. This is a matter that the court should decide, given the individual circumstances of each case.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, also mentioned the rights of those on zero-hours contracts and on other casual contracts. There is a misconception that those on a zero-hour contract do not have employment rights or have fewer rights than those on other types of contract. Everyone, regardless of contract type, has employment rights. The employment status of an individual will determine whether they are an employee or a worker; employees and workers have different employment rights. However, let me be clear that people working under a zero-hours contract have the same day one rights as any other worker or employee. When there is a qualifying period for certain rights—for instance, entitlement to maternity pay—they must meet this condition, just as with any other worker or employee.
I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, to the Moses Room. She asked whether emotional pressure could be taken into account. It would be a matter for the court to consider what the detriment is in each case.
Finally, I reiterate that the Government are committed to ensuring that exploitative practices identified around zero-hours contracts are eradicated, so that those on this side of the contract have a fair deal. The regulations are supported by the majority who responded to a consultation period on this matter. I commend the regulations to the Committee.