What changed to zero-hours working rules in January 2026
Two linked changes came into force on 6 January 2026 under the Employment Rights Act 2025 and the first commencement regulations.
First, the Workers (Predictable Terms and Conditions) Act 2023 was repealed. That removes a statutory framework that many employers had only recently factored into policy planning and workforce strategy. Any internal procedures, guidance or training materials built around that Act now sit on repealed footing and should be withdrawn or reworked to avoid confusion.
Second, and more significantly, the statutory ban on exclusivity terms was extended. The restriction no longer applies only to zero-hours contracts. It now applies to all zero-hours arrangements, regardless of how the relationship is labelled or documented.
This shift from “contracts” to “arrangements” is deliberate and expansive. It is designed to capture the reality of how work is offered and accepted, not just what the paperwork says.
Why zero-hours arrangements now carry higher employer risk
For many employers, historic compliance focused on drafting. If a document avoided the phrase “zero-hours contract”, risk was often assumed to be low. That assumption is no longer safe.
A zero-hours arrangement can exist even where there is no single overarching contract or where work is offered through ad hoc assignments, bank worker systems, platform models or layered agency supply. If the employer does not guarantee work and expects availability when work is offered, the arrangement may fall within scope.
From a legal perspective, this significantly reduces the protection employers previously relied on through relabelling or structural design. From an HR perspective, it brings informal practices and manager behaviour into sharper focus.
Where exclusivity risk now arises for employers
Exclusivity risk is no longer limited to an obvious written clause that bans secondary work. The higher-risk areas for employers now sit in how expectations are communicated and enforced.
Written terms that restrict outside work across zero-hours populations are unlikely to withstand scrutiny. However, many claims are expected to arise from detriment rather than drafting alone. Common flashpoints include reduced shifts, removal from rotas, delayed offers of work or informal pressure once an individual takes other employment.
Operational rules can also recreate exclusivity indirectly. Blanket availability requirements, expectations of priority over other employers or punitive responses to declined shifts can all function as de facto exclusivity, even where no formal ban exists.
From a litigation perspective, these cases are fact-sensitive and difficult to defend if shift allocation decisions are undocumented or inconsistent.
How the changes affect flexible and casual workforce models
The change has the greatest impact on employers that rely heavily on flexible labour. That includes casual worker pools, bank staff, seasonal workforces, hospitality and care sectors, logistics, retail peaks and on-demand staffing models.
Agency and outsourced arrangements are not immune. While the contractual employer may be a third party, tribunals and enforcement bodies will look at how the working relationship operates in reality. If the end user drives availability expectations or penalises secondary work, risk can still attach.
Employers that rely on exclusivity to secure last-minute cover or to stabilise rotas will need to revisit those assumptions. Control through restriction is no longer a viable strategy in zero-hours contexts.
What employers can still control without breaching the rules
The changes do not remove all employer protections. They require sharper, more defensible use of them.
Conflicts of interest remain legitimate. Employers can require disclosure of secondary work where it competes directly, creates a genuine conflict or risks confidential information. That is different from a blanket ban and needs to be drafted and enforced as such.
Health and safety considerations remain valid. Where fatigue or working time limits create real risk, employers can manage that risk through compliance checks and fit-to-work processes rather than prohibiting other work outright.
Performance expectations can still be set when work is accepted. The risk arises where shift allocation is used as leverage to control behaviour outside working time rather than to manage service delivery.
Steps employers should take now to reduce risk
Employers should start with a full mapping exercise. That means identifying every population working under variable or ad hoc hours and reviewing not only contracts, but offer letters, handbooks, rota policies and manager guidance.
Secondary work clauses should be separated clearly into conflict, confidentiality and safety categories, with exclusivity language removed. Where managers retain discretion over shift allocation, decision-making should be documented and based on objective business factors applied consistently.
Training is as important as drafting. Many exclusivity problems arise at line manager level through informal comments or assumptions rather than formal policy. Those behaviours now carry greater legal weight.
Agency and supplier arrangements should also be reviewed to ensure that expectations placed on workers through the end client do not undermine the supplier’s compliance position.
Section H: DMS Perspective: What this means for HR teams
The real significance of the January 2026 change will be cultural. The law now means zero-hours workers cannot be treated as a captive workforce without guaranteed work in return.
Employers that continue to rely on informal exclusivity through pressure, availability expectations or quiet sanctions will find themselves exposed not only to individual claims, but to pattern-based enforcement risk. Those that adapt by redesigning flexibility around transparency, conflicts management and genuine choice will be better placed to retain staff in a tighter labour market.
Zero-hours working is not being banned, but it is being stripped of hidden control mechanisms. Employers who recognise that early can stabilise their models. Those who do not will discover the risk only after disputes arise.
Need assistance?
To discuss how the Employment Rights Act 2025 impacts your organisation, and how to mitigate ruslk through this period of change and transition, you can book a fixed-fee telephone consultation to speak directly with one of our expert advisers.
