Zero hour contracts

This post has been removed because it contravened our guidelines.

This post has been removed because it contravened our guidelines.

This post has been removed because it contravened our guidelines.

This post has been removed because it contravened our guidelines.

This post has been removed because it contravened our guidelines.

This post has been removed because it contravened our guidelines.

This post has been removed because it contravened our guidelines.

I agree Rebecca, that's when people need to stand there ground and grow a back bone, not make a lame excuse and let companies that flout the law and the SPIRIT of the law get away with it, but I guess that depends on how much stomach and belief you have, have a good weekend.

Sorry, I'll clarify - Contracts of Employment do not need to be issued by law, it is simply good practice to do so. All that is required by law is a written statement of particulars. However, you are absolutely right that it is best practice to issue Contracts of Employment, although there are plenty of employers who do not follow best practice, especially where an individual's employment status is in question.

Rebeca I'm sorry but you have misunderstood what I was trying to relay, Contracts do need to be issued and they do need to be in writing as part of being a responsible employer and also to clarify the exact position of the employee and exact requirement of the employer, so that when a dispute arises it is far simpler to reach a decision as to who is in breech and reach a much more clear cut and fair decision based on written fact that both parties have signed and are in agreement with. If a company did not provide this I for one would be dubious about working for them in the first place, disputing something that is verbal can be hear say or fabricated that is not good evidence. This is all I was trying to relay, I hope you can agree.

Phil,
I disagree, contracts don't need to be issued and they don't need to be in writing, they can be verbal or by conduct. A Contract of Employment is different to Written Statement of Particulars, the latter needs to be issued by law within 2 months of the employee starting. You don't have to give someone a written contract of employment but they are still an employee. Evidentially and practically it is best practice to issue all employees with fully drafted (i.e. not template) contracts of employment.

Re: "If it isn't written..." it still happened.

Employers can labeled an individual self-employed, part-time, etc, etc, all they like but ultimately the courts decide.

Anon I disagree Contracts do need to be issued,m there is a saying "If it isn't written it didn't happen" When any dispute arises it is much easier to resolve if there is a written contract, and which ever way you cut it as soon as a person is offered work no matter what you like to call them that in itself is a contract of employment, but we have set procedures laid down in employment law to protect both employee and employer but all this said "You can lead the horse to water but you cant make it drink"

I agree Rebecca, but you cant help those that absolutely refuse to be helped.

There is no question that they are employees, and there is no question that they are under contract as an employee.

Not being pedantic but contracts don't ever need to be written (I am pointing this out merely because its a pet hate of mine, having seen people get hurt by using wrong terminology - sorry) but they are still contracts.

However they should have 'Statements of employment particulars' in writing as you say, which they don't.
And after their last meeting they aren't willing to say anything more about it.

Phil,
Your colleagues need to get advice, because the employer is wrong. Part-time is just a label, it means nothing in law, so I would suggest that they already have a contract of employment, the fact that it is not in writing 1) means that the employer has already breached employment regulations because written particulars have to be given within 2 months of the start of employment, and 2) a contract still exists despite the fact it is not written on paper.

The person who has been there for 3 years should be entitled to a redundancy payment if that is the case, but it definitely sounds like they are employed.

A Zero Hours Contract IS a contract of employment, so the normal employment rules still apply. So when you say "it may become contractual" it already is. A contract of employment is a contract of employment regardless of whether you are zero hours, part-time or full time, you are still governed by the same employment rules.

Casual workers are not "employed" but can have basic employment rights as a "worker" not as an "employee", there is a subtle difference.

It is only if the individual is "genuinely" self-employed that there is no contract of employment. But this can still be challenged in the tribunal, so using a "self-employed individual" does not necessarily help unless they are in business on their own account.

Hope that helps...

The trouble with Zero Hour 10 Hour 20 Hour contracts etc, unethical company's are using them inappropriately, all contracts have a purpose to protect the employment rights of both Employer and Employee.
A good employer will engage the employee and contracts will be a mutual agreement. I would suggest if any employer has any doubts they should take up the appropriate advice ideally from ACAS and not try to flout the system or Employment law for the benefits of penny pinching, I would suggest any employee who feels there Employment rights are being flouted or they feel they are under threat of job loss if they speak out or being bullied by there Employer into working in unacceptable conditions including contractual you take free advice in the first instance from any Citizens Advice Center. Everybody has the right to be treated fairly Employers and Employees.

Hi Phil

Sometimes people are their own worst enemies! Good to hear that you're not one of the spineless minority.

I'm sure that a certain fast-food giant (with scary clown) still uses zero hours contracts. Each of these sick-bag 'restaurants' is a franchise, so it's difficult to organise and acheive union recognition (every outlet would be considered it's own bargaining unit).

I know Craig, but they won't do anything.

They had a meeting with a line manager (shakes head) about it and he said that they could bring someone along from within the company, I offered to sit with them but they said "No, better not, you might say something and upset them" (which I would not be able to do anyway - but jeez!)

I officially give up on them, (actually I don't, because it angers me so much) but just let the company try that kind of nonsense with me, and I would upset someone!

On zero hour contracts, I believe Burton's men's clothing stores were one of the first companies to use zero hour contracts but I think they stopped using them after a while because they were too difficult to manage (Not positive on that, but pretty sure).
This was to do with using students, or young people, which went with an image update of the company.
And the (then) normal contracts weren't suitable for them, for the same reasons as Susan

We use zero hours contracts for a couple of casual workers but it is because they work very irregual hours with no obligation to do any. They are available if our regular staff cannot cover absences and we just phone up to ask if they would like to work and they say yes/no - it can be several times in a week or may not be for months at a time so this is the only realistic way of dealing with it.

Hi Phil,

Sounds like a juicy Employment Tribunal claim to me. As you know, there are clear rights in terms of contracts of employment and both have served their qualifying period for unfair dismissal.

I dont see how the company can get away with it. Your friends definitely need legal advice here. I hope they get it!! They dont deserve such treatment but I guess as you say, it happens! Best of luck.

Well, I guess that having a zero hour contract, or at least a statement of particulars with zero hours is better than what is currently happening to 2 of my friends who work in different roles within the same company.

They have been told that they are "part-time" despite working almost 40 hours per week and even though they have worked for 1 year and 3 years respectively, they are still told that they have no right to any contract!

The person that has been there for 3 years has been told that they may no longer be required soon.

It infuriates me that you cant get anything done without causing yourself lots of hassle.

I'm not saying "think yourself lucky" but I am saying that companies will flout the law over and over again, get legal advice and do things right, or (if your an employer), you could be unethical and keep your fingers crossed that the employees keep on working no matter what.

I wish you the best.

This post has been removed because it contravened our guidelines.

Gareth, Craig and James
I am definitely getting legal advice on this. As I understand it they do work (some hours) every week and some in excess. Therefore, regular work. The more I delve the more it seems the contract has become contractual. Therefore, not as flexible as first thought. Thanks very much for your help.
Does being self employed help. Again I suspect there are downfalls.......

Christine,

In my opinion Zero hours contracts should be avoided. The instability of such contracts leaves indivduals demoralised and difficult to motivate. I cannot think of one positive surrounding these. Put yourself in their shoes; no regular income, no ability to obtain a mortgage or other credit.