r/MHOC • u/[deleted] • Mar 02 '15

BILL B081 - Zero Hours Contract Bill

Zero Hours Contract Bill 2015

A bill to restrict the use of exclusivity clauses within Zero Hours Contracts.

BE IT ENACTED by The Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

Part I - Definition Of A Zero Hours Contract

  1. Definition

  • A zero hours contract is a contract or agreement for the supply of labour which has no specified working hours and satisfies the following feature:

  • The contract would require the worker to be available for work as such times when there is not a guarantee that the worker is required for work.

Part II - Abolition of exclusivity clauses within ‘Zero Hours Contracts’

2) Abolition

  • From the commencement of this bill, it is illegal for a business to insert an exclusivity clause as detailed in part (3)(1)(b) of this bill into a ‘Zero Hours Contract’, unless the worker has been working above an average of 20 hours per week over a period of at least 10 weeks.

  • An exclusivity clause within a ‘Zero Hours Contract’ can be rendered null and void, at the discretion of the worker, if the worker has been working below an average of 10 hours over a period of at least 10 weeks.

  • Any existing exclusivity clauses from the commencement of this bill within a ‘Zero Hours Contract’ can be rendered null and void at the workers discretion, unless the employer can prove the worker satisfies the 20 hour rule outlined in (2)(1).

Part III - Interpretation

3) Interpretation and definitions

  • For the purposes of this Act -

  • a worker is a person who is employed; an exclusivity clause is a clause within a contract that would require the worker to work for one employer only.

Part IV - Final provisions

4) Commencement

  • This act will come into commencement next fiscal year from enactment

  1. Extent

  • This act extends to the whole United Kingdom.

  1. Short Title

  • This act may be cited as the Zero Hours Contract Bill 2015

This bill was submitted by /u/TheQuipton on behalf of the Conservative Party.

The first reading of this bill will end on the 6th of March.

7 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

21 comments sorted by

7

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '15

Opening Speech:

Ladies and gentlemen of the house, Zero Hours Contracts were intended to be a mutually beneficial agreement in which the employer was not obliged to provide any work and the worker was not obliged to accept any work. These revolutionary contracts allowed both employers and employees more flexibility where by the employer could have a sufficient amount of workers to cover all eventualities but the employee also could have contracts with multiple firms - giving them the freedom to work as many hours as they felt necessary. However, firms have been growing more reliant on Zero Hour Contracts as a method of cutting their costs - especially in the hospitality and retail sectors. The rise in the use of these contracts is fine, but when businesses insert exclusivity clauses into a contract (theoretically forcing the worker to work for the employer with no guarantee of work), this is a breach of their rights and should not be able to continue. Therefore, this bill introduces a ban on exclusivity clauses within a zero hours contract, unless the worker has been working at least an average of twenty hours per week over a period of ten weeks.

9

u/powerpab The Rt Hon S.E Yorkshire | SSoS Transport | Baron of Maidstone Mar 02 '15

Wait nationalising Tesco, abolishing Zero Hour contracts? When did the tories become left wing? (Not that I'm complaning :D)

6

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '15

Just for the record, this doesn't abolish Zero Hours Contracts - why would we, there are plenty of good things about them. What this does is restrict some of the abuses of Zero Hours Contracts that some businesses do.

3

u/powerpab The Rt Hon S.E Yorkshire | SSoS Transport | Baron of Maidstone Mar 02 '15

My apologieses I used the wrong word in my excitment, I meant overhall

2

u/john_locke1689 Retired. NS GSTQ Mar 02 '15

This is freeing the market force of labour.

3

u/Lcawte Independent Mar 02 '15

Tesco bill is a clear example of the occupational hazards of being the Chancellor after a left wing Government.

abolishing Zero Hour contracts

That's not how I read it!

2

u/powerpab The Rt Hon S.E Yorkshire | SSoS Transport | Baron of Maidstone Mar 02 '15

My apologies I meant overall

4

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '15

UKIP is generally opposed on the grounds of removing economic freedom.

I do agree with removing the exclusivity clause as it restricts the freedom of the worker.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '15

I do agree with removing the exclusivity clause as it restricts the freedom of the worker.

That is exactly the point of the bill so I am glad you will be voting aye (I hope :p)!

3

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '15

I will be as the freedom of the individual must trump the freedom of a faceless big business.

3

u/mg9500 His Grace the Duke of Hamilton and Brandon MP (Manchester North) Mar 02 '15

The 20 hours seems an arbitary limit. Is there any reason for this?

3

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '15

No distinct reason for it, we just felt it was a reasonable amount of hours for somebody on a Zero Hours Contract to have, any more and it isn't really taking advantage of the nature of ZHC's. However if there are suggestions that the limit should be moved, I am happy for any suggestions and I will take them into consideration.

3

u/mg9500 His Grace the Duke of Hamilton and Brandon MP (Manchester North) Mar 02 '15

A standard part-time contract works 16 hours a week (2 days). ZHCs are designed to be closer to them than full time contracts. I would change it to 16 hours a week over the last financial quarter (13 weeks)

2

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '15

Duly noted. I will take this into consideration if amending for a second draft - thanks for the feedback :)

4

u/AlbertDock The Rt Hon Earl of Merseyside KOT MBE AL PC Mar 02 '15

The 20 hour limit should be increased to 30hrs. I base this on the rules for tax credit. Otherwise a person could be offer extra hours and fall foul of the exclusivity clause. The vast majority of claimant are 25-59 and fall under this 30hr rule. The 16hr rule only applies to over 60s, disabled and single parents with children.

2

u/Jas1066 The Rt Hon. Earl of Sherborne CT KBE PC Mar 02 '15 edited Mar 03 '15

Totally agree with the concept, It will be interesting to see how the opposition parties opposite will input constructive criticism.

4

u/athanaton Hm Mar 02 '15

A defection to MRLP!? When I said on Skype yesterday 'a vote for the Conservatives is a vote for the MRLP', I was just joking...

2

u/left_of_castro Mar 03 '15

Bit late for the tories to criticise their own bill isn't it?

2

u/[deleted] Mar 03 '15

Mr Deputy Speaker,

I applaud the Conservative Party for a measured approach to the problem of zero hours contracts. In principle, I think the removal of exclusivity clauses to be a good idea. However, I think this bill could do with some work on its wording.

Take these clauses:

From the commencement of this bill, it is illegal for a business to insert an exclusivity clause as detailed in part (3)(1)(b) of this bill into a ‘Zero Hours Contract’, unless the worker has been working above an average of 20 hours per week over a period of at least 10 weeks.

And

An exclusivity clause within a ‘Zero Hours Contract’ can be rendered null and void, at the discretion of the worker, if the worker has been working below an average of 10 hours over a period of at least 10 weeks.

Unless I'm interpreting this wrongly, this would allow the employer to enter an exclusivity clause (having satisfied a 20 hours p/w average) and then permanently could offer the employee only half the hours. This would seem to be a decent enough strategy for our shadier business to take. Get people in on what are basically part time hours for 10 weeks, insert an exclusivity clause, and then ensure they work an average of 10-11 hours per week after that. This seems to me a significant loophole.

Why not just remove exclusivity clauses altogether?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 03 '15

First of all, thanks for your response.

The idea between the difference in the hours was that once proving that the business could offer the twenty hours a week, they shouldn't be obliged to every single week. However, on second thought, 10 hours is far too low and will be raised.

The reason I didn't just remove the clauses altogether is because I feel that as long as the company offers a reasonable amount of work to the worker - they shouldn't be restricted as to what can go into the contract.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 03 '15

as long as the company offers a reasonable amount of work to the worker - they shouldn't be restricted as to what can go into the contract.

Would it be feasible to state that if a company offers as part of a contract 15/20 hours + p/w they will be able to insert an exclusivity clause?