Employment Rights Bill Delayed By Peers’ Amendments

The Employment Rights Bill brings in a raft of changes, including a ban on exploitative zero hours contracts; day one unfair dismissal protection; removal of anti-trade union red tape; and better statutory sick pay.

This comes after a long period when previous governments failed to act on the rise of insecure work.

However, at the latest stage of proceedings, Tory and Lib Dem peers worked together to water down key commitments in favour of bad employers.

It is now up to MPs to reverse these changes, many of which were manifesto commitments of the Labour government.

The amendments supported by the House of Lords contain several that would seriously undermine the effectiveness of proposed changes in the Bill.

The full list of approved amendments includes:

•Forcing workers on variable hours to contracts to ask for guaranteed hours, rather than have secure contracts offered to them.

•Allowing employers to sack workers for a period of six months before unfair dismissal protections kick in.

•Undermining workers’ voice by requiring members to actively opt into trade union political funds rather than opt out.

•Reinstating the anti-democratic 50 per cent turnout threshold for industrial action.

•Allowing academy trusts to water down terms and conditions for school support staff.

•Opening the way for commercial organisations to represent staff at grievance and disciplinary hearings at great cost to both workers and employers

•Establishing an Office of the Whistleblower.

•Giving employees who are special constables the right to time off to carry out their police duties.

•Consulting on the impact of measures on small businesses.

•Allowing children to work as volunteers on heritage railways.

If retained in the Bill some of these amendments would seriously undermine the legislation and allow bad employers to exploit their staff.

The TUC opposes requiring workers on variable hours arrangements to request a guaranteed hours contract. Instead, an employer should have to offer one to eligible workers. We know from other areas of employment law that workers often do not know their full rights. Others will be put off making requests that they fear their employer would not look kindly on.

Likewise, retaining a qualifying period for unfair dismissal protection would give a window for an employer to dismiss an employee without a fair process or reason. There was nothing in the original bill that would have prevented an employer from dismissing a worker who was unsuitable for a role due to their conduct or capability.

The amendments on political funds is intended to weaken workers’ public voices.

Retaining the turnout threshold for industrial action could weaken workers’ ability to secure fair terms and conditions because it places an additional hurdle before industrial action and therefore tilts the balance of power more towards employers.

The Bill will return to the House of Commons in September for MPs to consider the Lords’ amendments.

The TUC has urged the government to stand firm against amendments which would allow employers to continue to exploit workers with insecure contracts or dismiss them without a fair reason or process.

The two houses will continue to vote on amendments in a process known as “ping-pong” until a way forward is agreed.

Many of the amendments to the Bill seek to overturn the Labour government’s manifesto commitments, something the House of Lords has traditionally avoided.

They also put the peers at odds with the general public and even voters from their own parties.

A recent TUC mega poll revealed huge support across the country and across the political spectrum – including Conservative voters – over key policies in the Bill.

For example, more than seven in 10 (72 per cent) of UK voters support a ban on zero hours contracts.

This includes two in three Reform (65 per cent) and Conservative (63 per cent) voters from the 2024 general election.