Welcome Ana
I would advise you to think very carefully before instituting such contracts. Apart from the legal issues involved it may damage your credibility as a charity

In reply to Peter Stanway:

Thanks Peter, I appreciate your advice. Currently the charity is looking at different options to redesig some of their contracts to be aligned with the GDPR changes that are coming in.
With all due respect, used correctly zero hours contracts might be beneficial for both employees and employers, offering both the freedom of choosing when and how much to work to suit individual circumstances.

In reply to Peter Stanway:

Hi Peter

I think the problem is that the term “zero hour contract” has become toxic. It is possible to operate these ethically, and building up a bank of people who can be offered work as and when a need occurs can be perfectly ethical. The first requirement is for complete transparency from the start so that the applicants know what is on offer. Then, once you have your bank, you need to run it ethically. This includes people being free not to take work when it isn’t convenient without there being any penalty.

One of the organisations I support is a social enterprise which offers zero hours contracts for cover staff. It’s ideal for students or people with caring responsibilities. We have people on these contracts who have repeatedly turned down offers of regular hours. If someone hasn’t done any work for a few months we would write to them and ask if they still want to be contacted. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t, but it is up to them.

However, I do agree that there could be an effect on reputation if the charity doesn’t think through very carefully how they will offer and manage these contracts. I would rather offer a zero hours contract transparently than a contract with extremely low regular hours that will be operated like a zero hours contract and would feel more confident dealing with any external interest about the former than the latter.

In reply to Elizabeth Divver:

Hi Ana

This is the best guidance I have come across
www.eversheds-sutherland.com/.../index.page

In reply to Elizabeth Divver:

Thanks Elizabeth, for your comment and confirming my beliefs, that by offering this type of contracts (as long as it’s transparent and clear of the pros and cons) can be beneficial for both parties, but again regularly reviewed to ensure it still meets its initial purpose: flexibility to accept or decline work on an adhoc basis.

In reply to David:

Thanks David, I’ll review the guidelines and see how these can fit into our strategy.

As an aside to this. Is it true that you can no longer offer holiday pay rounded up in the hourly rate anymore?

In reply to Marie Bradley:

Hi Ann-Marie

Yup, afraid so.

In reply to Elizabeth Divver:

So we can't pay the 12.07% on top of their hourly rate anymore in lieu of holidays? Sorry, I just want to make absolutely sure.

In reply to Marie Bradley:

Hi Ann-Marie

Not really, but if you separate out the amount the percentage uplift comes to and show it as a separate item of pay clearly labelled holiday pay then as far as I know that might well be okay - daft I know, but there you go.....

In reply to David:

That's my understanding too.

In reply to Elizabeth Divver:

And mine
The Taylor Report wanted to make RUHP more acceptable but the Government backed off because it is strictly speaking not lawful. In some cases it is really not the right way to go about it but as outlined above if you are very clear about it then they will have had it so no compensation due.

In reply to Marie Bradley:

Paging Angela Jellyman .

However, when I worked on the ZHCs for the charity where Angela took over from me, I retained the 12.07% on top of the hourly rate by default, but provided the contractual entitlement to paid holiday accrual on request.

The ability to accrue holiday was an important right for zero-hours workers who were being employed for extended periods on low pay and then laid off without notice. But in the right environment, where zero-hours workers have space between assignments and a good relationship with management that means that work can be declined without undue penalty, the 12.07% is an easier solution for most people.

While I was working with people on ZHCs, for several employers, we were very transparent that they had a right to paid holiday but that we were choosing to begin from the 12.07% monthly as a default because most people found it more convenient. In three and a half years, no one every asked to have paid holiday instead.

In reply to Robey:

Ah yes, the 12.07%.

So, as Robey says, its part of our contract and it has worked very successfully for us, and I can confirm not one person has asked to switch to paid holiday instead, which is an example of how it can work when it is what both parties want.

As a note of caution though, we are currently TUPE'ing out the department that uses the majority of these contracts and the new provider have removed the 12.07% payment as part of their measures going forward and will be requiring staff to take the paid leave. The new organisation were not happy at all with the 12.07% approach....but the staff are not overly happy its being taken away!

Happy to share templates if you need one, although I'm not on here much these days with the impending TUPE taking all my time!

In reply to Angela Jellyman:

That would be great please.