First zero-hours, now one-hour contracts: is this a new low or a flexible option for workers? Jeremy Coy reports
It came to light recently that Santander employs 371 on-call customer service assistants across its branches on ‘one-hour contracts’ which guarantee one hour of work per month with the option to work additional hours. The employees in question are very junior staff who provide additional cover when needed.
Zero-hours contracts have prompted a great deal of recent public debate. But what are ‘one-hour contracts’, how do they differ from zero-hours and are they a positive development for employees or a step in the wrong direction?
Under many zero-hours contracts, an employer is not obliged to provide work but the worker is generally expected to be available for any work which might be provided. Employers are therefore really having their cake and eating it, in that the flexibility is largely one-way. It was for this reason that, from January 2016, clauses in zero-hours contracts requiring exclusivity (meaning workers could not work elsewhere) were banned. The thinking behind this was that an employer who is not guaranteeing that any work will be available should not be entitled to prevent its workers from working elsewhere.
Santander explained that it does not use zero-hours contracts and has defended its use of one-hour contracts on the basis that they offer full employment rights such as maternity leave, paternity leave and paid holiday, with no obligation to accept additional hours. Presumably they also give the employee continuity of employment such that, after two years, they will have protection against unfair dismissal.
Key differences
Santander argues that these employment rights represent a key difference from zero-hours contracts and that the guarantee of work, however minimal, allows employees both flexibility as to the amount of work they do (beyond the compulsory one hour per month) and certainty that they will have some income each month. As with zero-hours contracts, this flexibility may benefit students, working parents and individuals who may have other commitments or careers they are pursuing.
Santander’s one-hour contracts apparently do not contain exclusivity clauses, so do not appear to have been introduced merely to circumvent the regulations banning exclusivity in zero-hours contracts referred to above. Indeed, Santander has made the point that it is not circumventing any employment laws and that the use of one-hour contracts is supported by its unions. It may have introduced them simply as a way of being able to offer the same flexibility as under a zero-hours contract, but without the stigma sometimes associated with the latter, which are often denounced as unfair and exploitative.
It is difficult to say at this stage whether one-hour contracts will catch on. Zero-hours contracts are becoming increasingly common, in spite of the mainly negative view of these contracts taken by politicians and the press, because the flexibility they offer will often suit both parties provided it works both ways. It seems possible that others will choose to follow Santander’s lead, if they have an occasional need for overflow support but do not want to be accused of using zero-hours contracts to deny their workers employment rights. Provided they are not used as a way of circumventing any legislation which regulates zero-hours contracts, they would seem to be a step in the right direction.
Jeremy Coy is an associate at Russell-Cooke
Image may be NSFW.Clik here to view.