The British government must urgently rethink a key element in the flagship reforms of workers' rights to avoid inadvertently creating “a veto on all contractual change”, according to a principal trade unionist.
Mike Clancy, secretary general of the Prospect Union, said that the provisions of the bill on employment law intended to prevent employers from using controversial tactics “fire and re -embarrass” to impose terms and conditions for worse staff to turn against him, unless the draft legislation has been modified.
“It is essential to ban the practice of fire and rehiring, but the government must be careful that it does not inadvertently create a veto against all contractual changes,” he told Financial Times.
Business groups and employment lawyers fear that, in its current form, legislation could make very difficult for employers to make routine organizational changes – such as a relocation from one city to another, where some employees did not want to move.
Unions Including prospects have fought hard for rigorous fire and rehiring borders to be included in the overhaul of employment law – which also encompasses a great upgrade of union rights – and have been categorical that ministers should not give in to lobbying to water them.
The objective is to prevent employers from using coercive tactics to reduce wages or benefits, except when faced with acute financial difficulties as changes are essential to continue working.
The prohibition of fires and rehiring has become a rallying cry for unions after a series of large employers used the tactics to force restructuring during the pandemic, and after the P&O ferries have shared its entire British team and replaced it with agency personnel cheaper in 2022.
The parliamentary debate on the bill on employment rights is approaching its closing stages, giving ministers their last opportunity to propose amendments to legislation before it reaches the law book.
But the debates have dragged on key elements of the legislation and the bill now seems unlikely to reach Royal Assen Before fall.
“When the bill comes into force, what is an employer seeking to move his company supposed to do? Does it simply accept that layoffs will be unfair? ” Asked Darren Newman, a job lawyer, adding that this could put the government to compensation if it moved the services of London and that some officials refused to move.
Another major area of concern is the practical aspect of the prohibition of zero hour contracts, where companies and unions are still struggling with the difficulty of spelling how a new right at guaranteed hours should be framed in regulations.
Business groups are also fiercely opposed to proposals aimed at giving workers protection against unfair dismissal of the first day of a job. They say that it is not clear how a new statutory probation process will work and that the lack of clarity already dissuades hiring.
“The fear of the bill influences business behavior,” said Neil Carberry, Director General of the Confederation of Recruitment and Employment, adding that even if it would take years to implement the legislation, customers were already cautious as a factor in their decisions.
Jonathan business secretary, told journalists on Thursday on the sidelines of a conference that he was “absolutely certain” to respond to the concerns of companies concerning a period of statutory probation, but that “I must have the bill adopted before moving on to implementation”.
With regard to the details of the workers' guaranteed hour supply, there was “more than sitting” to reach an agreement with companies and unions, he said, adding that he had recognized the need to avoid a “very expensive” process.
Clancy said that if certain details could be settled by subsequent consultation and regulations, the main parts of the bill needed additional work before becoming law. “If you have established an architecture that limits additional discussions, it will be a problem,” he said.
The business and trade department has been contacted to comment on the calls to rethink the fire and rehiring provisions.
