Written submission from CILEX (ERB0010)
0.1. CILEX would like to take the opportunity to respond to Business and Trade Committee’s Call for Evidence in relation to the Employment Rights Bill. CILEX represents a substantial number of employment practitioners within the legal sector.
0.2. The Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEX) is the professional association and governing body for Chartered Legal Executive lawyers (commonly known as ‘CILEX Lawyers’), other legal practitioners and paralegals. Under the Legal Services Act 2007, CILEX acts as the Approved Regulator (AR) and delegates these regulatory powers to the independent regulator, CILEx Regulation Ltd (CRL).
0.3. CILEX represents over 17,500 members of which 77% of the membership are female, 16% of members are from an ethnic minority background, 4% are LGBT and 6% have a disability. Additionally, in terms of social mobility, 77% of CILEX members attended a state-run or state-funded school and 41% have an undergraduate university degree (of which 63% of those members were the first to attend university).
0.4. Please be advised that CILEX has only responded to the questions where there is sufficient evidential data.
- Does the Employment Rights Bill adequately safeguard the workers it seeks to protect?
1.1. CILEX notes that there are major clauses requiring consultation and therefore CILEX is unable to confidently comment on the extent in which the Bill adequately safeguards workers until further information is supplied. However, CILEX supports the work being undertaken by the Government in safeguarding workers through the Employment Rights Bill.
- Are there areas of employment law not covered by the Bill that weaken workers’ protections?
2.1. CILEX believes that IR35 and Umbrella companies are not adequately addressed in the Bill. CILEX is aware that many bona-fide contractors are treated as synthetic employees, paying both employers’ and employees’ national insurance without the access to employee benefits, rights or advantages.
2.2. Additionally, CILEX notes that TUPE provisions are not included in the Bill, more specifically, the opportunity to review ISS Facility Services NV v Govaerts & Atalian NV[1]. CILEX hopes that the Government will consider the implications of TUPE alongside the proposed changes to ensure adequate protection of workers.
- Are there any weaknesses or loopholes in the Bill that could be exploited or have unintended consequences?
3.1. CILEX notes that the Labour Government prior to election had referenced the concept of Single Worker Status. Whilst this is not referenced in the Bill, CILEX notes that the Bill is closing the gap between employee and worker status that could potentially discourage employers from recruiting further.
3.2. Additionally, CILEX notices that the zero hours provisions are extremely complex in the Bill, which could in turn discourage legitimate use of zero hour contracts in practice.
3.3. In relation to fire and re-hire, CILEX believes that the exception is too stringent, meaning that businesses will struggle to successfully rely on it even where there is a legitimate need to do so. This will in turn harm businesses, ultimately harming the employees that the Bill is seeking to protect.
3.4. Finally, CILEX believes that replacing the unfair dismissal qualifying period with a initial period of employment (formerly known as probationary periods), will lead to more satellite litigation. CILEX believes that in its current state, the use of qualifying periods is more straightforward and avoids ambiguity.
- Conclusion
4.1. CILEX supports the Government in creating new legislation to protect the employment rights of those most vulnerable. However, CILEX notes that there are significant gaps and loopholes in the Bill that must be considered and had been initially anticipated. An example being TUPE regulations.
Page 2