A proposed crack down on zero-hour contracts in the workplace have suffered a setback today.
Flagship plans by the Government to halt zero-hour contracts in the workplace have been scuppered by peers in the House of Lords.
The House of Lords backed by 264 to 158, majority 106, a move to change the legal requirement for an employer to offer guaranteed hours to an employee’s right to request the arrangement.
Peers went on to inflict a further blow on the Labour front bench in supporting by 267 votes to 153, majority 114, a measure to exempt employers from having to make a payment to a worker if a shift was cancelled with at least 48 hours’ notice.
The defeats came as the Employment Rights Bill, which has already been through the Commons, continued its passage through the upper chamber.
The changes made by peers to the draft law paves the way for a parliamentary tussle, known as “ping-pong”, where the legislation is batted between the two Houses until agreement is reached.
The proposed workers’ rights reforms also introduce new restrictions on “fire-and-rehire” processes when employees are let go and then re-employed on new contracts with worse pay or conditions.
In addition, the Bill strengthens trade unions and gives workers certain “day one” rights, such as sick pay, paternity leave and the right to request flexible working.
Proposing his alternative to the proposed zero-hours provision, Liberal Democrat Lord Goddard of Stockport acknowledged the need to tackle the “exploitative” use of the practice that left workers in “precarious employment circumstances”.
But he added: “That said, our amendment reflects that shared objective, while offering a more practical and balanced view.
“The amendment changes legislation from an obligation to offer guaranteed hours to a right to request them.
“Furthermore, it maintains that when a such request is made, the employer must grant it.”
He added: “Our amendment seeks a fair balance, protecting workers from exploitation while preserving the flexibility which is crucial for many industries to function.”
But opposing the move, Labour peer Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill, a former assistant general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, warned: “I very much fear that it undermines the purpose of the Bill, which is trying to deal with the problem of zero-hours contracts.”
She said: “What the amendment doesn’t take account of is the imbalance of power in workplaces and the characteristics of employees who are working on zero-hours contracts.”
Arguing those on zero-hours contracts were “the least empowered workers”, Lady Carberry added: “So the right to request guaranteed hours in those circumstances is not a real right at all.
“And then how many of those workers, vulnerable as they are, might come under pressure not to press for guaranteed hours
“This formulation of the amendment leaves open the path to some of those worst employers to make sure that they don’t end up offering guaranteed hours to workers on zero-hours contracts.”
However, Tory shadow business minister Lord Sharpe of Epsom said: “It makes no sense to require employers to offer guaranteed hours to employees who don’t want them.
“The Government appears to misunderstand or simply disregard the autonomy of the individual worker.
“Imposing this administrative burden, especially on small employers, to calculate and offer guaranteed hours where they are neither wanted nor needed, is an unnecessary and unavoidable cost.
“We therefore strongly support the right to request amendment proposed by Lord Goddard which better respects worker choice and employer flexibility.”
Responding, business minister Baroness Jones of Whitchurch said: “We believe the duty to make a guaranteed offer should lie with the employer.
“This is the best way to ensure that all qualifying workers benefit from the right guaranteed hours when they want them.
“If a worker on an exploitative zero-hours contract had to request the guaranteed outcome, they may feel less able to assert their right to those guaranteed hours, and they would lose out as a result.
“It’s quite right to highlight the imbalance of power in the workforce for these individuals, and this is particularly true when workers take up a new job.”
She added: “A right to request model could create undesirable barriers, making it especially difficult for vulnerable workers on exploitative zero-hours contracts to access their right to those guaranteed hours, especially as many workers are younger and often in their first job.
“As the Bill is currently drafted after receiving an offer from the employer, qualifying workers will be empowered to make a decision based on their individual circumstances.
“If a worker wants to retain their zero-hours contract, as many will, they can do so by rejecting the offer.”
