zero hour help please.

rhosynbach

can anyone help please. my son is on a zero hour contract but for 2.5 years has worked continuously a minimum of 36 hours a week,up to 50 hours some weeks. not even had a holiday but they did give him holiday pay at the end of the year. he was happy with this but they are restructuring and he has been told from november there may not be hours for him unless several of the other staff leave, This does not seem fair as he has worked more hours than the rest of the staff is never late or sick is there anything he can do please ..

lincroft1710

Zero hours means just that. Your son has one of the most unfair but still legal employment contracts, he has agreed to accept work when it is available.

elsien

Has he been working regular hours/shifts during that time? If so it is possible that this overrides the zero hours and he could potentially be considered an employee due to the regular hours worked.

Is he in a union?

lincroft1710

I may have misunderstood your original post. I thought your son had worked for this employer for more than 2.5 years, but if he has only worked for them for 2.5 years, then that does not seem to be a zero hours contract.

rhosynbach

elsien wrote: »

Has he been working regular hours/shifts during that time? If so it is possible that this overrides the zero hours and he could potentially be considered an employee due to the regular hours worked.

Is he in a union?

thanks for your reply just joined union today, he has been doing 5 or 6 days every week starting at the same time as the rest of the shift and doing the same hours as everyone else. so very regular and getting paid overtime on his wage slip for extra hours. i did not think if you where on zero hours you got overtime

rhosynbach

lincroft1710 wrote: »

I may have misunderstood your original post. I thought your son had worked for this employer for more than 2.5 years, but if he has only worked for them for 2.5 years, then that does not seem to be a zero hours contract.

thanks for your reply . i may have worded it wrong he has been there just over 2.5years on a zero hour contract but working continuously,

lincroft1710

As he's joined a union (good move!) they will be able to advise him as to whether or not his employment is a ZHC.

rhosynbach

lincroft1710 wrote: »

As he's joined a union (good move!) they will be able to advise him as to whether or not his employment is a ZHC.

thanks i will tell him to see the union rep

sangie595

The union may advise - they also may refuse because the rules say they won't help people who just join to get help! Those people usually resign just afterwards. So there's very limited support from unions for new members.

It's a myth that working the same hours means that someone isn't on a zero hours contract. That isn't one of the tests. A zero hours contract must be in writing. It must be possible for the worker to refuse to work. They must not be bound to one employer. But someone could work the same 40 hours every week for ten years and still be on a zero hours contract. It's "wrong", but it's true.

However, the question is "is there anything he can do" if they reduce the hours. And regrettably the answer is "very little". Let's assume that, with the "right" circumstances, he could claim to be an employee.... so what? He's got 2.5 years service, a pittance of redundancy pay, and had just tipped off the employer that he'll fight back and he's joined a union! If they were the sort of employer who didn't care about those things and would be fine about them - he wouldn't be in this position in the first place because he wouldn't be in a zero hours contract!

Of course, he won't prove he was selected for those reasons- it'll be something else entirely that results in him being out on his ear.

It's not fair. But pragmatism says keep the union and ditch the job as soon as you find a better one.

rhosynbach

sangie595 wrote: »

The union may advise - they also may refuse because the rules say they won't help people who just join to get help! Those people usually resign just afterwards. So there's very limited support from unions for new members.

It's a myth that working the same hours means that someone isn't on a zero hours contract. That isn't one of the tests. A zero hours contract must be in writing. It must be possible for the worker to refuse to work. They must not be bound to one employer. But someone could work the same 40 hours every week for ten years and still be on a zero hours contract. It's "wrong", but it's true.

However, the question is "is there anything he can do" if they reduce the hours. And regrettably the answer is "very little". Let's assume that, with the "right" circumstances, he could claim to be an employee.... so what? He's got 2.5 years service, a pittance of redundancy pay, and had just tipped off the employer that he'll fight back and he's joined a union! If they were the sort of employer who didn't care about those things and would be fine about them - he wouldn't be in this position in the first place because he wouldn't be in a zero hours contract!

Of course, he won't prove he was selected for those reasons- it'll be something else entirely that results in him being out on his ear.

It's not fair. But pragmatism says keep the union and ditch the job as soon as you find a better one.

Thanks for your reply and advice . His employer is actual a county council so you would expect better from them . But your right he does need another job on a proper contract

sangie595

rhosynbach wrote: »

Thanks for your reply and advice . His employer is actual a county council so you would expect better from them . But your right he does need another job on a proper contract

In that case, I can probably write a shortlist of the jobs he'd be doing; and councils don't always get it right, but I'd lay bets that it's a zero hours contract and legally so. And to be honest, if it's a council, they'll be needing to cut money wherever they can. I wouldn't rely on having the hours.