ZERO HOURS JUSTICE
  • Home
  • Our Accreditation Scheme
  • HELP & HELPLINE
  • About Us
    • Our Purpose
    • Who we are
  • ZHJ IN THE NEWS
  • Blog
  • Useful Links
  • Client Stories
  • CONTACT

Blog

one third of zero hours contracts working are working full time

24/2/2021

 
By Pravin Jeyaraj
Over one-third of zero hours contract workers are working full-time, according to  statistics released today by the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

The ONS data revealed that, during the period October to December 2020, there were 978,000 people on zero hours contracts, compared to 974,000 for the same period in the previous year.

Of the 978,000 zero hours contract workers, 340,000 say that they are working full time hours, up from 307,000 for October to December 2019.
Picture
Sixty-two percent of people on zero hours contracts are categorised as working part-time. In addition, the data also reveals that, for those zero hours contract workers who are working two jobs, the average weekly number of hours worked is 17.7 hours. Those zero hours contract workers who are only doing one job are working an average of 25.5 hours a week.

One argument often put forward by employers in favour of zero hours contracts is that it allows them to adjust staffing levels to match unpredictable business demand.  


But, if a sizeable proportion of zero hours workers are working full time hours or a weekly average of around 20 to 30 hours, it could be argued that these workers should not be on zero hours contracts. The volume of work available suggests that they should be on permanent or fixed term contracts or contracts for a fixed or minimum number of hours that matches their actual working pattern.

Furthermore, the ONS data also reveals that around 50% of zero hours contract workers have been with their current employer for more than two years. If they are also working regular hours or a regular number of hours each week, they really should be on a permanent employment contract. From Zero Hours Justice's own observations of the people who have contacted us for help, many zero hours contract workers end up in regular patterns of work for long periods of time, without necessarily earning the same level of employment rights as permanent staff.
Why is this important? In the past 12 months, we have seen employers relying on contractual obligations to decide whom to furlough or make redundant. So, those on permanent employment contracts have tended to benefit from furlough or redundancy pay,. But their colleagues on zero hours or casual contracts simply see their work disappear, even though they may be working like permanent staff. Some employers such as IKEA have furloughed zero hours workers. But other zero hours workers have, with our help, had to fight to be furloughed or receive redundancy pay, not always successfully. After all, if you were an employer, why would you pay someone for work not being done if you have not legal obligation to do so? 
HOW HAS COVID AFFECTED THE USE OF ZERO HOURS CONTRACTS?

During the first lockdown between April and June 2020, the number of zero hours contracts shockingly broke the one-million barrier.

But, according to today's ONS data, the number of people of zero hours contracts is back to pre-Covid levels and increasing.

For the period October to December 2020, there were 978,000 people on zero hours contracts, compared to 980,000 in the first quarter of 2020.

Between July and September 2020, the number of zero hours contract fell from over a million to 957,000 but the end of the year, it it had risen again to the level prior to the first lockdown. 
BREAKDOWN OF ZERO HOURS CONTRACTS BY INDUSTRY AND OCCUPATION
Most zero hours contract workers (40%) work in elementary occupations and process, plant and machine operations. Caring, leisure and other service occupations make up 19% of zero hours contract workers, while 8.6% work in sales and customer services roles. 
Picture
​In the past 12 months, the number of zero hours contract workers has increased in the construction, wholesale and retail, information, finance and professional and admin and support services sectors. Meanwhile,  production, accommodation and food, public administration, education, health and social work and transport, arts and other services have seen a fall in the number of zero hours contract workers.
Industry
October to December 2019 (000s)
April to June 2020 (000s)
October to December 2020 (000s)
Production, including agriculture
​56
47
43
Construction
27
32
37
Wholesale and retail
88
119
100
Accommodation and food
223
237
217
Information, finance and professional
52
56
60
Admin and support services
51
65
74
Public admin
21
20
22
Education
104
101
96
Health and social work
198
207
188
Transport, arts and other services
146
167
142
​Source: Office for National Statistics

SUPREME COURT RULING ON UBER DRIVERS HIGHLIGHTS LACK OF LEGAL CERTAINTY IN EMPLOYMENT LAW

23/2/2021

 
By Pravin Jeyaraj
The UK Supreme Court’s ruling this month on the employment status of Uber drivers could offer a ray of hope for zero hours contract workers and casual workers.

In the judgement, the court decided that Uber drivers were in fact workers, not self-employed contractors as argued by the company and stated in their contracts. As workers, Uber drivers would be entitled to certain employment rights, including:
  • National Minimum Wage
  • Protection against unlawful deduction of wages
  • The statutory minimum level of paid holiday
  • The statutory minimum level of rest breaks
  • The right not to work more than 48 hours on average a week, unless they choose to
  • Protection against unlawful discrimination and for whistleblowing.
​
Picture
They may also be entitled to statutory sick pay and maternity or paternity pay.

The case, Uber BV and others  v Aslam and others, relates specifically to the status of so-called “gig economy” workers, rather than casual workers or zero hours contract workers. Zero Hours Justice is concerned about the inappropriate use of casual workers and freelancers by employers. However, it has no objection in principle to the “gig economy”, in which people work on a freelance or short term contract basis and are paid for each job rather than at an hourly rate.
Picture
The Supreme Court decision hinged on the importance of the contract in determining the employment status of the drivers. Tech company Uber relied on the wording of its Service Agreement to argue that it was merely a booking agent and the contract was made between drivers and passengers. Uber merely collected payments on behalf of the drivers and charged drivers a service fee for using the technology. Uber drivers were free to work whenever they want and for as much or as little as they want.
However, the Supreme Court ruled that the correct starting point was not the contract but the purpose of section 230 of Employment Rights Act 1996, where “worker” is defined in law. The purpose of the legislation was “to protect vulnerable workers from being paid too little for the work they do, required to work excessive hours or subjected to other forms of unfair treatment” (Para 71). Citing another case, Byrne Bros (Formwork) Ltd v Baird[2002], the reason for the protection was because employees and workers are in “a subordinate and dependent position” vis-a-vis their employer. Whilst the terms of the written contract were important, it was also important to consider whether the written terms really reflected the relationship  between Uber and the drivers.
 
For casual and zero hours workers, this position stated by the court means that it may not be enough for an employer to simply refer to the terms of the contract to deny rights that are only available to employees. Casual work and zero hours contracts are largely intended for situations where the work is seasonal or short-term and demand is difficult to predict. A contract or written terms of engagement may emphasise the freedom to accept or decline work, the lack of any obligation on the employer’s part to guarantee work and absence of any continuity of employment. Nevertheless, if a worker ends up developing a regular pattern of work over at least two years in practice, it could and should be argued and accepted that the worker is an employee in practice.
 
Unfortunately, however, this is not a hard and fast rule and depends very much on the specific circumstances and situation of a worker. If employers do not accept a worker’s argument, they may well have to argue their case at an employment tribunal, referring to other cases.
Unfortunately, it looks like the government’s employment bill, meant to tighten the law to protect those in precarious employment, will not be published until late 2021 at the earliest. Zero Hours Justice has had correspondence with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy at HM Government and has received an indication that it may include a right for workers to request a more fixed working pattern after 26 weeks of service. If this is true, it is a shame that this legislation is not being brought forward as many zero hours workers are losing out now.
Picture
As a result of the Uber judgement, the Financial Times [may require subscription] has called on the government to take “a wider look at how it regulates the labour market as novel forms of work proliferate” and to be more proactive in enforcing the existing laws: “Every court has agreed with the Supreme Court’s interpretation but no agency proactively sought to enforce it.  The government’s recently created position of director of labour market enforcement is soon to be vacant. The government must move fast to fill it.”
​With regard to the Uber case, the Supreme Court decided that the drivers were workers because what happened in practice did not match what was stated in Uber’s Service Agreement:
 
Pay
Uber dictated how much drivers were paid for a job (fare) and the drivers could not charge more than that. The only way that a driver can increase pay is by working longer hours (switching on the app) and constantly meeting measures of performance.
 
Unilateral contract
The contract was imposed by Uber and drivers had no say in its terms.
 
Limited choice to accept work
When logged in to the app, a driver’s choice to accept requests was constrained by Uber. The driver’s rate of acceptance and cancellation of trip requests was monitored and a penalty was imposed if too many requests were declined or cancelled. The penalty was to automatically log the driver out of the app for 10 minutes, preventing them from working until allowed to log back in.
 
Significant control over provision of services
A failure to maintain an average rating leads to a series of warnings and eventual termination. Communication between passengers and drivers was restricted to the minimum necessary to perform particular trips and active steps were taken to prevent drivers from establishing a relationship with passengers beyond the individual ride.
 
According to Uber, the Supreme Court ruling applies to only a small group of drivers from a period of time when a particular contract was in operation. However, the ruling offers self-employed people in a similar position significant encouragement that things will change for the better this year, following this landmark judgement.

    contact

    For press enquiries or permission to reuse content, please contact:
    Pravin Jeyaraj, Communications Officer, press@zerohoursjustice.org

    Images can be downloaded from here. Image of Julian Richer should be credited to Gerardo Jaconelli. 

    Archives

    November 2022
    October 2022
    August 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020

    CATEGORIES

    All
    Zero Hour Contract Scotland
    Zero Hours Contracts British Summer Time
    Zero Hours Contracts Daylight Saving Time
    Zero Hours Contracts Gender
    Zero Hours Contracts Local Authorities
    Zero Hours Contracts Local Councils
    Zero Hours Contracts NHS
    Zero Hours Contracts Public Sector
    Zero Hours Contracts Universities
    Zero Hours Contracts Women

    RSS Feed

Picture

    WANT TO HEAR MORE FROM US? PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS AND WE WILL KEEP YOU UP TO DATE WITH OCCASIONAL EMAIL BULLETINS 

Subscribe to Newsletter
Picture
Picture
Follow us on
Facebook &
​Twitter
Company No: 12417909  Registered Office: 38 Coney Street, York, Y01 9ND
Privacy & Cookie Policy
  • Home
  • Our Accreditation Scheme
  • HELP & HELPLINE
  • About Us
    • Our Purpose
    • Who we are
  • ZHJ IN THE NEWS
  • Blog
  • Useful Links
  • Client Stories
  • CONTACT