• E
xtend the right to receive a written
statement of terms to workers
and require such statements to be
given on day one of the employment/
engagement;
• C
reate a stand alone right to
compensation if a written statement of
terms isn’t given;
• G
ive those in zero hours contracts the
right to request guaranteed hours after
12 months;
The Taylor
Review
The Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices was published
in July and was meant to address the issues that have arisen
over the last few years as a result of what is being called the gig
economy.
Businesses across a number of
industries have become increasingly
dependent on new staffing models;
relying on zero hours workers and
labelling (often incorrectly) many
individuals as self-employed.
It was estimated recently by the
Resolution Foundation that there are
almost 1 million UK workers engaged on
zero hour’s contracts and the Office for
National Statistics report that almost 5
million people are self employed.
The government ordered this review last
year saying that they were ‘determined
to build an economy that works for
everyone’ but has it addressed the
uncertainty faced by the millions of
people who often don’t know from one
week to the next whether they are going
have any paid work?
Employment law experts welcome
some of what is mooted in the review
but are largely disappointed by many
of the proposals and see the review
as a missed opportunity to provide job
security and equality of treatment to
those who don’t (or can’t) work within the
traditional employer/employee model.
48
The headline suggestion (that the three
different categories of status remain but
that workers now be called dependent
contractors) has received a lot of media
attention but this is surely just window
dressing; a rose by any other name will
be still as thorny? What will changing the
name of this category of staff actually
achieve other than a drafting headache
for practitioners and civil servants?
Some of the reports other
recommendations include:
• Updating existing employment
legislation to ensure that the principles
around status that have developed
through case law in the last decade
are properly enshrined in law – but
only if the Government believes those
principles are still determinati ve;
• Consider increasing the National
Minimum Wage (NMW) for hours that
are not guarantee;
• Amend the law so that workers who are
allocated work through an app will not
have to be paid NMW when they are
logged on when no work is available;
• A
llow holiday pay to be ‘rolled up’ – that
is allowing workers to be paid a higher
hourly rate to include an amount for
holiday pay;
• R
eform the right to statutory sick
pay (SSP) so that it becomes a basic
employment right but make payment
dependent on having at least six
months service;
• A
llow an individual to bring an
Employment Tribunal claim to
determine their status without charging
a fee and allowing them to do so as a
preliminary issue before any substantive
claim is issued;
• P
lace the burden in an Employment
Tribunal claim of proving status on the
company; and
• M
ake the process of enforcing
Employment Tribunal awards easier and
‘name and shame’ employers that do
not pay.
• T
he review concludes with seven
steps towards ‘fair and decent work
with realistic scope for development
and fulfilment’ which contain great
soundbites including:
• …
good and plentiful work can and
should go together. Good work is
something for which Government needs
to be held accountable but for which
we all need to take responsibility;
• T
he best way to achieve better work is
not national regulation but responsible
corporate governance; good
management and strong employment
relations within the organisation; and
• T
he same basic principles should apply
to all forms of employment in the British
economy.
How (or even if) these laudable
statements will impact the workplace
remains to be seen.
By Sam Dickinson