date: 14 January 2003 embargo: 00.01hrs Thursday 16 January 2003

Attention: industrial, employment, legal and social affairs correspondents

Government should close loophole denying millions workplace rights

Today (Thursday) the TUC is calling on the government to close the legal loopholes and extend employment rights to all workers, ensuring that everyone at work in the UK gets minimum protections at work.

Government statistics show that as many as nine million UK workers could be losing out on employment rights such as unfair dismissal protection and family friendly rights because they do not legally qualify as ‘employees’. They are only considered to have ‘worker status’. These include casual workers, agency workers, home workers, freelancers, and those on zero hours contracts. In addition, registration officers, seafarers, some civil servants and clergy, all have fewer employment rights than workers with ‘employee status’.

In its submission, ‘Extending rights to all: The TUC response to the DTI consultation on employment status’, the TUC points out that under UK law, it is often the most vulnerable, low paid, low skilled workers who are not entitled to basic employment rights. Many of these people who lack full employee status are women or black or Asian workers, says the TUC.

The government has done much to improve the status of workers, bringing them within the confines of working time and minimum wage legislation for example. But says the TUC, other new rights giving parental, maternity and paternity leave are only available to employees with a more permanent employment status.

The TUC is concerned that because it is has been employment tribunals which have decided which groups of workers should enjoy which employment rights, the law has developed in a haphazard fashion, with a lack of consistency from the courts leading to a great deal of confusion.

TUC General Secretary Elect Brendan Barber said: 'Employers are more likely to use casual workers than ever before. There is a huge gulf between the rights enjoyed by employees and those that workers are entitled to. To save costs and get around the law, unscrupulous bosses are choosing to employ casual workers instead of taking on permanent employees.

'The result is the creation of a two-tier workforce - with employees enjoying job security, and a host of employment rights; and casual, agency and freelance workers experiencing job insecurity, and worsening job conditions. If the UK is to stay a fair place to work, the government must close the loophole and close it quickly.'

‘Extending rights to all’ says that UK law on employment status is in urgent need of modernisation. It cites various anomalies which need addressing - for example, workers have the right to be accompanied to a grievance or a disciplinary hearing, but do not have the right to have such a procedure in the first place. The right is limited to ‘employees’. Similarly, female ‘workers’ are entitled to statutory maternity pay but can’t take maternity leave, and fathers have a right to statutory paternity leave but have no right to return to their jobs after taking the leave.

• The TUC submission contains a number of case studies illustrating why the employment status loophole needs closing:

• Simon had worked for a large steel company in the North East for over three years, but was employed through an agency. He worked regular hours, alongside staff who were employed directly by the company, received a set rate of pay and was entitled to 25 days holiday a year. The company started a round of redundancies and he was one of the first to be laid off. He asked the company for redundancy payments and was informed that he had no rights because he was not an employee.

• Jane, a home-worker from South Wales, worked at home making Christmas crackers. When she tried to claim statutory sick pay and holiday pay, she was told by the supplier she was not entitled to anything. After complaining Julie received no further work.

• John was a wine waiter in a London hotel who served at banquets and private functions, who was dismissed. Although he was employed as a casual, he worked almost every week for an average of 30-40 hours and worked for no one else. He was supervised by hotel managers, was paid on the hotel’s pay-roll and tax and national insurance were deducted as if he was an employee. As a casual waiter, he was not obliged to perform any job, but if he refused he was dropped from the list of casuals who were regularly asked to do jobs. When his case went to a tribunal, it decided that he was not an ‘employee’ and therefore had no rights to unfair dismissal protection.

• Independent research carried out for the DTI in 1999, and quoted in the DT's Consultation Document in employment status, indicated that up to a third of the UK work force have ambiguous employment status, i.e. they may face difficulties proving they are an 'employee' in an employment tribunal.

Notes to Editors: All TUC press releases can be found at www.tuc.org.uk Case studies from Citizens Advice and the National Group on Homeworking. Contacts: Media enquiries: Liz Chinchen on 020 7467 1248 or 07699 744115 (pager) or email media@tuc.org.uk

Press release (900 words) issued 16 Jan 2003