Unscrupulous employers exploiting workers through zero-hours contracts
15 Apr 2014 11:36 AM
Interim report recommends changes to zero-hours
contracts but says “in the majority of cases” they should not be
used at all.
In
an interim report published yesterday, Monday 14th April 2014,
Parliament’s Scottish Affairs Committee says there has been an
“alarming” increase in the use of casual labour – who are in
some cases not being paid the legal minimum wage - across the UK, and in
Scotland in particular, and that Government should be using all the levers at
its disposal, including legislation, to change this.
The
Committee says the Government’s consultation on zero hours contracts is
too narrow: it is focused on exclusivity and transparency but the
Committee says addressing those concerns will do little to help workers who are
exploited by unscrupulous employers.
Evidence
Evidence to the Committee showed:
- 20%
of workers on zero hours contracts are paid less than their permanent
equivalents doing the same job
- 5%
are paid less than the national minimum wage although this is
illegal
- thousands of social care workers are illegally denied
payment for time spent travelling between appointments
- 40%
receive no notice of employment
- 6%
turn up for work - having paid for childcare, travel etc - to find none
available
- thousands of others’ employers evade the provision
of basic employment rights
- zero hours workers are entitled to limited employment
rights but a significant proportion of employers are either ignorant of those
rights or are wilfully blocking access to them
The
Committee also heard that the problem goes wider than employers: some
Jobcentre Plus staff are pressurising job seekers into accepting work with no
guaranteed hours and threatening to sanction either the job seeker - if they
turned the position down - or the worker - if having accepted it they found
insufficient hours were made available and wished to exit the contract and
re-sign on.
Many organisations are able to manage without using zero
hours contracts: local authorities have moved away from using them directly and
most major supermarkets - among the most successful businesses in the UK
- are able to respond to fluctuations in their sectors without
them.
The
Committee describes the Government’s suggestion that a low-paid worker
can challenge their employer through the courts as “fanciful”:
litigation is expensive, the lack of a legal definition of a zero hours
contract hinders any legal challenge, and any zero hours worker who embarks on
such a challenge may be penalised by the employer.
The
Committee says:
- Zero hours contracts must only be used where the
employer can objectively justify it
- The
Government must do more to protect workers who wish to challenge unfair, unsafe
or unlawful conditions of employment
- Workers should be told from the outset of their
employment what type of contract they are on and a written contract setting out
the terms and conditions must follow within two months
- There should be a minimum notice period of work and
workers should not be punished for turning down offers of work made within that
period
- Where workers arrive for work but find none available
then the employer should compensate them for the
inconvenience
- Travel time between appointments should be paid and pay
for zero hours workers should accurately reflect the number of hours that are
worked to fulfil contracted duties
- An
employer-led Code of Practice is unlikely to help workers who are
exploited – in fact it may serve to embed a form of employment that in
most circumstances is hard to justify
- If
a Code is produced it should only be as a stepping stone to, or following,
legislative change aimed at reducing the use of zero hours contracts and
ensuring workers receive the income, rights and protections to which they are
entitled
Committee Chair
Chair of the Committee Ian Davidson MP
said:
“The overwhelming majority of zero hours contracts
are abusive and exploitative and should be abolished. In most cases their
use is evidence of sloppy, lazy or incompetent management, who intimidate their
workforce by keeping them insecure.
Zero hours contracts put workers in such a vulnerable
position that they are unable even to assert their lawful right to the meagre
benefits these contracts offer.
We
heard how workers, without any kind of job security, were fearful of
questioning the terms of their employment, even when they knew they were being
treated unfairly, and that they were reluctant to challenge unsafe working
conditions. Many felt that they could not turn down work, no matter how short
the notice or however inconvenient the shift offered, in case doing so
jeopardised future offers of work.
Zero hours make blacklisting easy.
Our
detailed recommendations would improve the operation of zero hours contracts
but our overriding conclusion is that, in the majority of cases, zero hours
contracts need not and should not be used at all. Organisations in the public
and private sectors should look first to contracts of employment that offer
guaranteed hours and full employment rights.
We
believe the UK and Scottish Governments must use every lever at their disposal
to affect a cultural change against exploitative
contracts".
We
accept that there are some exceptional circumstances where workers will be
happy to be on zero hours contracts and, if both parties are satisfied, then we
are happy to see these continue. However, we heard evidence of far too many
situations where mutuality of obligation is patently not the case and zero
hours are being used with little justification by unscrupulous employers who
simply want to shirk their responsibilities and exploit their
workforce.
This report is an interim one, as it is being timed to
contribute to the UK Government’s consultation on zero hours. We now
intend to pursue these matters with a number of employers, both individually
and collectively.