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.

​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.

 By Pravin Jeyaraj

The coronavirus pandemic, however, has exposed a different reality. What Zero Hours Justice has found is that many casual workers have still had regular patterns and hours of work, as if they are permanent full-time or part-time employees, but without the same level of employment rights. When there was a shortage of staff and enough work to go around, the lack of a guarantee of work was less noticeable. In 2020, however, the government's strategy for tackling Covid-19 has lead to employers having to close down or reduce services for indeterminate periods of time. As a result, the lack of a guarantee of work has seen zero hours workers of all forms experience a drastic of loss of what had been regular income.

Many employers, but not all, have simply chosen to not furlough zero hours contract workers, even though individual employment situation would have made workers eligible to be furloughed. Often, the reason for not furloughing zero hours contract workers was the lack of any contractual right to pay for work not performed. On the face of it, this sounds like a reasonable position to take, until one takes into account that many zero hours contract workers may actually be working like full-time or part-time employees. Furthermore, they may also lose out on employment rights because the breaks in their regular working pattern mean they cannot claim to have continuous employment.  

Australia are just the latest in a line of countries with common law jurisdiction to attempt to significantly improve the lot of zero hours contract workers. In April 2017, zero hours contracts were effectively banned by New Zealand. Then, in 2018, on Christmas day, Ireland banned the use of zero hours contracts except in certain limited circumstances. A recent court ruling in South Africa, which has a hybrid legal system, found that amendments to the Labour Relations Act in 2015 meant zero hours contract workers could not be treated less favourably than permanent employees doing the same work. In this case, it was decided that not being guaranteed minimum hours was less favourable treatment. 

The United Kingdom, by comparison, has lagged behind its common law counterparts in the protection of zero hours contract workers. The most it has managed has been the banning of exclusivity clauses that zero hours contract workers from finding additional work when their main employer could not guarantee work. In 2019, it consulted on a number of reforms, including compensation for shifts cancelled at short notice and the requirement for a minimum notice period to cancelling shifts. The government appears to have forgotten about this consultation. If such a change in a law had been introduced, it would have made a big difference to the thousands of zero hours contract workers who suddenly lost work during the pandemic. But that would have been just the tip of the iceberg. More importantly, in the post-Brexit economic environment, how does the UK government hope to agree adequate free trade deals with other English-speaking countries when its protection of the most vulnerable workers appear to be weaker?

George*, one of the zero hours contract workers affected, said: “"Having previously been told that the zero-hours staff wouldn't be furloughed, I contacted Zero Hours Justice for advice and support.  After they contacted my employer, a decision has since been made to place me and my zero-hour colleagues on furlough, which is a great lifeline.  Thanks to Zero Hours Justice in helping to achieve this great success."

James Johnson-Flint, Director for Zero Hours Justice, said: “It is great that ABM have been flexible about furloughing its zero hours contract workers. We have often found that employers, once they decide not to furlough, rigidly stick to their decision despite good arguments to the contrary and without any sense of obligation to the staff on whom they depend to generate money. But the zero hours contract workers should never have been put in the position of having to push to be furloughed. There have been various government schemes to help employers support employees from 1 November – the now postponed Job Retention Bonus, Job Support Scheme and now extended Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme. As soon as the second lockdown was announced, a large company such as ABM should have instinctively thought it had the means to look after its zero hours staff.”

The vast majority of cases that Zero Hours Justice has received this year have been related to Covid-19. It is clear that the pandemic, especially the government restrictions and lockdown, have simply magnified the negative effects of zero hours contracts and insecure work. 

The people we have seen affected have been a diverse group, including invigilators who lost work when exams were cancelled this summer, local council workers, facilities staff working at Manchester Airport, shop workers and hospitality staff. Most shockingly, we have seen experienced, registered nurses on bank contracts with many years experience simply dumped by the NHS in the middle of a public health crisis.

As a result, we would like to let you know about Bureau Local and The Daily Mirror's Is Work Working? project, in which is intended to support you to tell your own stories of being in insecure work. They are running a series of online events and workshops to help you share your experience. It is hoped that the project will provide a great opportunity to shine a light on an under-reported area, particularly as people will be telling and shaping their own stories in a unique way. The successful participants will be paid for their involvement and will ultimately see their stories published in The Daily Mirror and on The Bureau of Investigative Journalism’s website.

The first event, an online Open Newsroom, takes place on 4th December at 1pm. You can find out more information from Bureau Local's website and this The Daily Mirror article.

Pravin Jeyaraj, Communications Officer for Zero Hours Justice, said: “Whilst we accept that that there is no contractual obligation to pay casual workers for work not done, it is not unreasonable to expect employers to be flexible in the current, unusual circumstances. Despite the nature of their working arrangements, many of the casual workers have have loyally undertaken work for Broxbourne Council for many years. They could reasonably expect that, had it not been for the pandemic and lockdown, there would have been work for them to do.”   
 
Broxbourne Council has a cohort of 458 casual workers. One of those affected by the decision not to pay for cancelled shifts during lockdown, Dawn Etheridge, said: “I was very disappointed with the council's decision. It is an affluent borough that has admitted it did not need to use the furlough scheme as it had enough money.  Despite this, it could not see fit to support some of its lowest-paid workers, even for those shifts they already had booked before the pandemic started. My family have over 28 years of service for the borough between us. I know we have only been casual workers but that's not because we didn't want to be permanent workers - it was something that was never offered to us. To lose a large portion of your salary overnight caused real financial hardship to me. I have worked for Broxbourne Council regularly for eight year, an average of 10 hours a week. 10 hours a week on minimum wage may not seem a lot to some but if you are on a low income bringing up a family on your own it makes a huge difference. My son also worked for Broxbourne Council as a casual worker so to lose two salaries from one family was very hard. Luckily my son is younger and was able to find some work during the pandemic to help out. I am now nearly 60, so was cautious about going out to find work during a global pandemic.”
                        
There is no obligation for employers to pay staff for cancelled shifts, which is a big problem for all zero hours contracts staff. However, in July 2019, the Department for Business, Energy and Industry consulted on various proposals that would benefit flexible workers, including compensation where shifts are cancelled at short notice. The proposals were proposed by the Low Pay Commission.
 
Zero Hours Justice was launched in January 2020 by a coalition of concerned citizens to:

• raise awareness of the stress and misery caused by zero hours contracts;
• offer legal help to zero hours contract workers;
• change the law through strategic litigation;
• name and shame employers who mistreat zero hours contract staff.  

 
It is led by Ian Hodson, who is also president of the Bakers Food and Allied Workers Union, and founded and funded by Julian Richer, the founder of Richer Sounds and author of “The Ethical Capitalist”. 
 
For more information and to share your story or offer help or support, see www.zerohoursjustice.org 

James Johnson-Flint, Director of Zero Hours Justice, said: “Zero Hours Justice was founded to campaign against the use of zero hours contracts and the insecurity they bring in terms of hours and pay. By demonstrating our commitment to pay the Living Wage, we are putting our money where are mouth is and making sure our own staff are paid fairly.”
 
Katherine Chapman, Director, Living Wage Foundation said: “We’re delighted that Zero Hours Justice has joined the movement of over 6,000 responsible employers across the UK who voluntarily commit to go further than the government minimum to make sure all their staff earn enough to live on.
 
“They join thousands of small businesses, as well as household names such as Burberry, Barclays, Chelsea and Everton Football Clubs, Lush, and many more. These businesses recognise that paying the real Living Wage is the mark of a responsible employer and they, like Zero Hours Justice, believe that a hard day’s work deserves a fair day’s pay. "

Zero Hours Justice has been contacted by a PhD student at Cardiff University carrying out research into the aspirations of people in precarious work, including those on zero hours contracts and casual workers.

It is fair that the government should pay people who are unable to work because they are being compelled to self-isolate after being contacted by NHS Test and Trace.

​However, the support payment of £500 may not be enough to cover the pay of those on zero hours contracts for the two weeks of self-isolation.

The support payment appears relatively generous for zero hours contract workers who usually work a below average number of hours. But, for those zero hours contract workers who usually work an above-average number of hours may see a shortfall.

Furthermore, the nature of zero hours contract means that the number of hours changes. If zero hours contract worker is forced to self-isolate at a time when they would usually work an above-average number of hours, you may find yourself at a disadvantage.

The support payment is only available to those who have been contacted by NHS Test and Trace and told to self-isolate. But, given the reported backlog of tests, a zero hours contract worker may find themselves in the position that they are showing symptoms of Covid-19, or is living with someone who is showing symptoms, but have not been able to get tested or they have not received a test result. If they do the right thing and follow previous government guidance to self-isolate anyway, they would not be able to claim the support payment. They may only receive statutory sick pay of £95.85 per week, assuming you are even eligible for that.

At the moment, none of the 12% of zero hours contract workers who live in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would be eligible for the support payment.

But for zero hours staff who neither employed nor self-employed, because they are seen as casual workers, it is not clear whether they would be able to claim the payment for agreed shifts that are lost as a result of enforced self-isolation.

Zero Hour Justice has formed a co-marketing partnership with London-based Wellspring Theatre Company relating to its forthcoming play "Hand to Mouth".

The play, a psychological thriller and black comedy written by Joe Kelly, is about the difficulties faced by those engaged in insecure zero hours contracts. It is partly based on conversations between Kelly and clients of Zero Hours Justice, who approached us for help in dealing with unfair treatment.   

Kelly said: "The idea for Hand to Mouth was conceived in the early weeks of lockdown when thousands of people working on Zero Hour Contracts were plunged into a state of deep anxiety and uncertainty. The play explores a circumstance in which two people - who are underpaid and overworked - are hired by mysterious employers who seem happy to exploit them and put them in harm's way. Using this idea as a springboard, we are aiming to create a tense thriller that explores a range of themes, including the fight for care and compassion amongst Britain's workers. Our interviews with the clients of Zero Hours Justice have been invaluable in alerting us to the scale of this issue."

James Johnson-Flint, Director of Zero Hours Justice, said: "It is great that Wellspring Theatre Company and Joe Kelly are developing this play about the plight of zero hours contract workers. We hope that, as well as entertain, it will inform audiences of the precarious nature of these type of contracts and persuade them that such contracts should be banned."

Zero Hours Justice was launched in January 2020 by a coalition of concerned citizens to:

• raise awareness of the stress and misery caused by zero hours contracts;
• offer legal help to zero hours contract workers;
• change the law through strategic litigation;
• name and shame employers who mistreat zero hours contract staff.  

 
It is led by Ian Hodson, who is also president of the Bakers Food and Allied Workers Union, and founded and funded by Julian Richer, the founder of Richer Sounds and author of “The Ethical Capitalist”. 
 
For more information about "Hands to Mouth" and Wellspring Theatre Company, see www.wellspringtheatre.co.uk.

This year more than ever before, business and the public have shown a widespread appreciation for keyworkers on the frontline in the battle against Covid-19. This has been most evident of all through the weekly public clapping events, thank you posters and special offers.

Yet, this appreciation sadly does not appear to have been reflected in any improvement in the precarious working conditions of many key workers. Instead, shockingly, it appears to have worsened.

​According to the latest employment data from the Office for National Statistics, the number of people on zero hours contracts during the lockdown period April to June 2020 smashed the one million barrier. In just one year, we have seen an enormous 17% increase, from 896,000 in April to June 2019 to 1,052,000 this year.

This dramatic increase in the use of zero hours contracts by employers is powered in large part by industry sectors most likely to employ key workers, punishing precisely those who have kept the country going in its time of need.

As food retailers, takeaways and online delivery kept society and the economy going, the wholesale and retail sector and accommodation and food sector saw a combined rise of 53% in the number of zero hours contracts, from 297,000 in April to June 2019 to 311,000 this year. This is also an increase of 42% from December 2019,

At the same time, as doctors, nurses and other health and social care workers were putting themselves at risk in battling Covid-19 and looking after the vulnerable, the health and social care sector saw the number of zero hours contracts go up by 35%, from 153,000 in April to June 2019 to 198,000 this year.
The education and transport sectors have also seen large increases, of 21% and 19% respectively, in the number of zero hours contract workers, compared to last year.

In terms of particular occupations, the largest increase in zero hours contracts has been seen by skilled trade occupations (46%), process, plant and machine operatives (28%) and  sales and customer services occupations (16%) and caring, leisure and other service occupations (10%).

Help us campaign against this shocking trend towards precarious employment, by telling us your story. Zero Hours Justice is actively working to lobby businesses, public sector organisations and others to stop the inappropriate use of zero hours contracts and make employers, government and the public aware how much harm they cause to so many, in today’s society.