A zero-hours contract guarantees no minimum number of hours. The employer offers shifts; the worker accepts or declines. No hours are promised, and none are owed. This arrangement suits certain business models - event staffing, care work, hospitality cover - but it carries legal and operational risks that many employers underestimate.
Worker rights under zero-hours contracts in the UK
A worker on a zero-hours contract in the UK is still a worker in law. That status carries real protections. The employer must pay the National Minimum Wage for every hour actually worked - there is no reduced rate for zero-hours arrangements. Holiday entitlement accrues at 5.6 weeks per year, calculated on the basis of hours worked. For irregular hours workers, the 52-week reference period introduced in 2020 replaced the previous 12-week calculation.
Critically: an employer cannot penalise a worker for declining a shift. Any clause in a zero-hours contract that requires exclusivity - preventing the worker from taking employment elsewhere - is unenforceable in UK law and has been since 2015.
Ireland: banded hours guarantee
Ireland took a different approach. The Employment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2018 effectively ended exclusive zero-hours arrangements. It also introduced banded hours: if an employee consistently works hours greater than 25% above their contracted amount over a 12-week reference period, they can request placement in a higher band. The employer must respond within four weeks.
The bands are: 3-6 hours, 6-11 hours, 11-16 hours, 16-21 hours, 21-25 hours, 25-30 hours, 30-35 hours, and 35 hours or more. An employer can refuse a banding request on grounds of fluctuating business needs, but the refusal must be justified.
New Zealand and the EU
New Zealand prohibited zero-hours contracts in 2016 under the Employment Standards Legislation Act. Employers must specify minimum hours in every employment agreement, and any agreed hours must reflect the actual hours the employee will work.
At EU level, the Platform Work Directive (2024) targets gig economy workers classified as self-employed but operating under conditions that suggest employment. Member states must transpose the directive by 2026. The directive introduces a presumption of employment status for platform workers, shifting the burden of proof to the platform to demonstrate genuine self-employment.
Alternatives that give flexibility without the legal exposure
Three contract types offer scheduling flexibility with stronger legal footing.
Annualised hours contracts set a total annual figure - say, 1,560 hours per year - and allow the employer to vary the weekly allocation within limits. Employees receive a steady monthly salary regardless of the exact hours in any given week.
Minimum hours contracts guarantee a floor - 16 hours per week, for example - with the option to offer more. The worker knows their minimum income; the employer retains some flexibility above that floor.
Casual employment with agreed notice periods allows on-demand scheduling but requires both parties to agree on a minimum notice period for offering and cancelling shifts.
The operational risk of zero-hours over-reliance
Beyond legal exposure, over-reliance on zero-hours workers creates scheduling instability. Workers who cannot guarantee income from one employer look for other jobs. Availability drops. Last-minute cancellations increase. The labour pool that zero-hours contracts were meant to create becomes unreliable.
Rezano tracks hours against contracted minimums and banded-hours thresholds - so employers see compliance risk before it becomes a tribunal claim.