The Employment Rights Act 2025 has started to bite earlier than many HR teams expected. One of the first changes to take effect, from 6 January 2026, directly affects how zero-hours working is structured, managed and policed inside organisations.
For HR professionals, this is not simply a contract update exercise. It is a shift in how availability, flexibility and control can lawfully be handled across casual and variable-hours workforces.
What changed and when
Two linked changes took effect on 6 January 2026 under the Employment Rights Act 2025 and the first commencement regulations.
The Workers (Predictable Terms and Conditions) Act 2023 was repealed. Any HR processes or policies created specifically to reflect that Act no longer have a statutory basis and should be reviewed to avoid outdated references or confusion.
More significantly, the ban on exclusivity terms was widened. It no longer applies only to zero-hours contracts. It now applies to all zero-hours arrangements, regardless of how the working relationship is described or documented.
For HR teams, the shift leading term is not “contracts” but “arrangements”. The law is now concerned with how work operates in practice, not how it is labelled.
Why this matters from an HR risk perspective
Historically, many organisations treated exclusivity as a drafting issue. If the contract avoided the phrase “zero-hours” or included flexibility language, risk was often assumed to be low.
That assumption is no longer safe.
A zero-hours arrangement can exist across casual worker pools, bank staff, platform models, seasonal work, agency-style engagement and other ad hoc working patterns. Where hours are not guaranteed and availability is expected, the arrangement may fall within scope.
For HR, this brings informal practices into play. Shift allocation, rota management, availability expectations and manager behaviour now carry legal weight alongside written terms.
Where HR teams are most exposed
The highest-risk scenarios are rarely explicit bans on secondary work. They tend to arise from operational behaviour.
Common examples include reduced shifts after someone discloses a second job, removal from rotas due to availability conflicts, delayed work offers or informal pressure to prioritise one employer over others. Even without a written clause, these patterns can amount to unlawful exclusivity.
These cases are difficult to defend if decisions are undocumented or inconsistent. From an HR governance perspective, they expose gaps in manager training and workforce controls rather than policy wording alone.
Tactical steps HR should take now
HR teams should start with a mapping exercise across all variable-hours populations. This includes casual workers, bank staff, seasonal workers, agency-supplied labour and any role where hours are offered as needed.
All documentation should be reviewed, not only contracts. Offer letters, handbooks, rota policies, onboarding materials and manager guidance often contain informal exclusivity signals.
Exclusivity language should be removed and replaced with clearly separated provisions dealing with conflicts of interest, confidentiality and health and safety. Those concepts should be defined narrowly and applied consistently.
Shift allocation processes should be tightened. Where managers have discretion, HR should require objective criteria and basic record keeping to evidence that decisions are not linked to secondary work.
Strategic workforce considerations for HR leaders
At a strategic level, the January 2026 change challenges long-standing assumptions about control in flexible workforces.
Zero-hours working can no longer be used as a mechanism to secure priority availability without guaranteed work in return. HR leaders need to consider whether current models are built on informal exclusivity that is now legally fragile.
This has implications for resourcing strategy, retention and engagement. Organisations that rely on pressure rather than transparency to secure cover are likely to see higher turnover and dispute risk. Those that redesign flexibility around genuine choice, predictable processes and clear expectations are better placed to retain staff in a tight labour market.
The change also reinforces the need for closer alignment between HR, operations and legal teams. Workforce models that look efficient on paper can unravel quickly if they rely on practices that managers assume are acceptable but are no longer defensible.
What HR should communicate internally
Line managers are often the point of failure in exclusivity disputes. HR should issue clear guidance explaining that zero-hours staff cannot be penalised for taking other work and that availability expectations need to be handled carefully.
Managers should understand what they can still manage, including performance when work is accepted, genuine conflicts and safety issues such as fatigue. They should also understand what crosses the line, particularly informal sanctions or assumptions about priority.
Clear internal messaging reduces the risk of inconsistent treatment that later becomes evidence.
HR takeaway
The January 2026 changes do not remove zero-hours working, but they narrow how it can be controlled. For HR professionals, the risk sits less in the contract template and more in day-to-day workforce management.
HR teams that act early to update documentation, retrain managers and revisit flexible staffing strategy will reduce exposure and improve retention. Those that leave existing practices untouched are likely to discover the risk only once complaints or claims arise.
Author
Gill Laing is a qualified Legal Researcher & Analyst with niche specialisms in Law, Tax, Human Resources, Immigration & Employment Law.
Gill is a Multiple Business Owner and the Managing Director of Prof Services - a Marketing & Content Agency for the Professional Services Sector.
