ERA – analysis highlights potential financial impact of zero-hours reform
The government has published detailed analysis to support its consultation on the implementation of the ERA reforms to zero and low hour contracts. In addition to noting that more than half of workers in insecure work reported that they would prefer guaranteed hours, the government analysis of zero and low hour reforms also recognises substantial financial implications for employers. Depending on final policy choices, the direct annual cost to business could range from £350 million to £2.9 billion. Importantly, many of the most significant cost drivers of zero and low hour working reforms remain subject to consultation, which closes on 25 August. The government acknowledges that employers may face increased administrative burdens, reduced flexibility and challenges responding to fluctuating demand. However, the analysis notes that, "The figures should be interpreted as a partial assessment, as they do not capture the full range of expected benefits such as improvements to wellbeing and lower reliance on higher cost travel and childcare, many of which cannot be robustly monetised”. Although the final regulations will determine the full extent and cost of the changes, uncertainty remains over the extent to which eligible workers will in fact accept offers of guaranteed hours. Additional government research suggests that many workers value flexibility. Employers advertising jobs on a zero-hours basis attract around 20% more applicants than employers offering comparable fixed-hours roles, and only a relatively small proportion of zero-hours workers, 15%, seek fixed-hours positions with the same employer despite employers regularly making those positions available. As a result, actual employer costs may depend not only on the final design of the legislation, but also on how workers respond in practice to opportunities for greater contractual certainty.
ERA – survey shows employers lack confidence ahead of new trade union rights
With ERA trade union reforms taking effect on 30 October 2026, new Acas research suggests that many employers remain uncertain about what the changes will mean in practice. An Acas-commissioned YouGov survey found that one in five employers were not confident in making the trade union policy and practice changes required by the new legislation. While 62% of employers said they felt confident about adapting to the changes, 9% said they were not at all confident. The reforms include a new right for independent trade unions to access workplaces, alongside a range of other measures designed to strengthen the role of trade unions in supporting and representing employees. Acas has urged employers to start preparing now rather than waiting for the new regime to take effect. To help organisations get ready, we recently hosted a well-attended client roundtable on preparing for the new trade union access rights. Employers from a range of sectors discussed the practical challenges that access requests may create, including operational continuity, security, data protection, workforce relations, health and safety, and the practical steps organisations should take if a request arrives. Our message mirrors that of Acas: employers should engage with these changes early. Organisations do not need to wait until they receive an access request before taking action. Early preparation can help employers identify potential risks, establish clear processes and ensure that managers understand how to respond. If you would like to discuss our flexible package of support and how we can help your organisation prepare, please contact Jon Fisher or Anthony Convery.
ERA – Tipping code consultation launched
The government has launched its consultation on the amended Code of Practice on Fair and Transparent Distribution of Tips. This version replaces the amended tipping Code that the government laid before Parliament in June and expected to take effect in October. The consultation closes on 29 September, and the government expects the new Code to take effect later this year.
Supreme Court clarifies protection available to part-time workers
The Supreme Court (SC) has clarified the test for claims under part-time workers regulations, ensuring that the burden to establish less favourable treatment is no higher than for other kinds of discrimination in UK law. The decision concerned a private hire driver, Mr Augustine, who worked fewer hours than full-time drivers, but his employer, Data Cars Limited, required him to pay the same weekly "circuit fee" to access the company's booking system. He argued that this resulted in him paying a higher fee per hour worked than comparable full-time drivers. The key issue was whether a part-time worker must show that their part-time status was the sole reason for the treatment that they challenged, or whether it is enough that part-time status was one of the causes. The SC unanimously rejected the "sole reason" approach. Instead, it decided that part-time worker status only needs to have been an effective cause of it. It does not need to be the main or only reason. For employers, the practical question is: was the employee's part-time status an effective cause of less favourable treatment? If the answer is yes, the regulations may protect the worker, even where other business, operational or commercial factors also contributed to the impact. Employers should therefore be cautious about arrangements that apply the same rule or charge to all staff but have a different impact on part-time workers. However, an employer may still defend a claim if it can objectively justify the treatment and the SC left open the possibility that other causal factors may affect that objective justification or compensation.
