‘Zero-hours’ claims disputed
A COUNCIL has defended its use of casual workers after coming under fire over zerohours contracts.
The Liberal Democrats called on Gateshead Council to stop using zero-hours contracts, under which an employer does not have to provide any minimum working hours, saying they “don’t stand up” to newlyadopted jobs promises.
Lib Dem councillor Ron Beadle questioned why the authority spends £89,000 on casual workers for its library services, saying it can put workers in a “very difficult position” when claiming benefits.
Labour council leader Martin Gannon told a full council meeting last Thursday the council does employ people on zero-hours contracts, but that many of its workers prefer that arrangement.
But the authority later clarified that there are “crucial differences” between its casual work and traditional zerohours contracts.
Coun Beadle said the last published figures showed that the council employed 700 people on zero-hours contracts.
His comments came as the authority approved a motion supporting the TUC’s Great Jobs Agenda.
Coun Beadle said he supported the proposal “wholeheartedly”, but added: “Some of our practices don’t stand up to the test that the TUC has rightly given us.”
Coun Gannon replied that he “can’t sit back and have the council castigated as a poor employer”.
He added that many zero-hours contracts employees “don’t want to be full time employees.”
A council spokesperson said: “With a zerohours contract, you are generally contracted to a single employer but you don’t know from one week to the next – or even one day to the next – what hours you may be required to work.
“What you will know, however, is that there will be a clear expectation that you will be required to work when your employer says so.
“By contrast, Gateshead Council has pools of casual workers who provide emergency short-term cover for absences to ensure continuity of service, particularly in frontline services.
“These employees will be brought in as emergency cover but the decision to work is theirs, not ours.”
The spokesperson added: “These are not unusual arrangements within the public sector.”