Zero and Guaranteed hours

• Charter: commits employers to ending the use of enforced zero-hours contracts and requires workers to receive a guaranteed minimum of 16 hours per week.
• ERA 2025:  does not seek to prohibit the use of zero-hours contracts entirely but requires employers to make an offer of guaranteed hours to qualifying workers based on hours regularly worked over a defined reference period. It will apply to both zero hours workers and those who have a low number of minimum guaranteed hours, including agency workers.  These changes are not expected to take effect until 2027 and many key provisions are still subject to government consultation. In particular, we are yet to find out what is meant by ‘low hours’ – so, which workers will have the right to be offered guaranteed hours, although the government’s preference is for the limit to fall between 8 and 20 hours.

One to watch: The Charter goes further than the Act in that all workers would be guaranteed at least 16 hours’ work per week whereas the Act only requires employees working below an (as yet undefined) limit to be offered guaranteed hours that reflect what they have worked. However the Charter’s limit of “16 hours” perhaps gives some indication as to what Andy Burnham considers ‘low hours’ and which employees might, therefore, qualify for the offer of guaranteed hours under the Act, although options currently being consulted on are much wider.

Statutory sick pay

• Charter: requires members to provide sick pay from day one of absence and to pay staff who are off sick a replacement income of 100% of their usual earnings for “as long as possible”, although there is no defined minimum period.
• ERA 2025: from 6 April 2026, brought statutory sick pay in line with the Charter’s requirements by removing the requirement for three “waiting days” of absence before SSP is payable.  SSP is, however, less than 100% of pay for the vast majority of workers and is payable for a defined period – up to 28 weeks.

Unlikely to change: Given many employers are already struggling to keep up with higher payroll costs, it seems unlikely reforms would seek to go further than the Act’s current position by mandating the Charter’s requirements. We have certainly seen no proposals of that sort.

Pay gap reporting 

• Charter: requires employers with over 100 employees to perform gender and ethnicity pay gap reporting.
• ERA 2025: introduces new obligations for employers with 250 or more employees to produce and publish "equality action plans" covering steps taken to reduce the gender pay gap. Unlike the Charter, there is no obligation on employers for ethnicity pay gap reporting yet, but this is set to be introduced under separate legislation. Again, however, it would apply only to employers with 250+ employees (and not the 100+ threshold set by the Charter).

One to watch: Whilst we have seen no suggestions that the reporting thresholds under the Act will be reduced to reflect those in the Charter, the fact that the Charter goes further might strengthen the political case for wider pay gap reporting reforms.

Minimum wage

• Charter: requires members to pay the real Living Wage.
• ERA 2025: does not make provisions relating to the NMW.  However, in April 2026 rates increased to £12.71 for the National Living Wage and £10.85 for 18 to 20-year-old rate. This was a large increase for the 18- to 20-year-old rate, in comparison to recent increases and reflected the government's stated policy of narrowing and eventually eliminating the gap between this rate and the NLW.

One to watch: Whilst media reports suggest the phasing out of the 18- to 20-year old rate is likely to be delayed given the high levels of youth unemployment, the Charter’s requirements may be indicative of a government that will be generally sympathetic to generous increases across all rates in future years.

• Charter: requires anonymised recruitment processes consistent with the ‘ban the box’ campaign to remove criminal record tick boxes from application forms.
• ERA 2025: does not propose any changes to recruitment processes, however the Act has strengthened protection for people who have been convicted of criminal offences by making it automatically unfair to dismiss an employee, or terminate a signed employment contract, because of a spent conviction. This closes an existing gap in protection. However, the reforms stop short of protecting job applicants because protection only begins once an employment contract is in place.

One to watch: Perhaps the Charter indicates that Burnham’s drive to reduce unemployment extends beyond his publicised focus on NEETs (young people not in education, employment or training) to those convicted of criminal offences. ‘Banning the box’ may be something to keep an eye on under a Burnham government.

Employee wellbeing

• Charter: requires members’ managers to have “a specific objective to discuss employee wellbeing”, encouraging conversations around reasonable adjustments for employees with long-term conditions and disabilities.
• ERA 2025: while recognising wellbeing as an employment issue, the Act does not impose specific wellbeing obligations on managers. Although the “right to switch off” was a manifesto commitment, this did not find its way into the package of reform in the Employment Rights Bill. This is expected to be pursued via a Code of Practice.

One to watch: The Charter underline’s Burnham’s commitment to health and wellbeing. As there was less emphasis on this in the Act that might have been anticipated, will we see progress on the Code of Practice? Watch this space for another consultation.

Menopause

• Charter: The Charter’s requirements are aspiration but not strictly defined - Members are expected to evidence that they acknowledge different life stages, including menopause, and support staff to thrive within their working environment.
• ERA 2025: Under future regulations, employers with 250 employers or more will have to publish equality action plans. Included in these will be steps the employer is taking to support employees through menopause. 

Unlikely to change: The Charter and Act seem aligned in their ambition to support employees experiencing menopause but the Act arguably goes further in requiring the publication of an “action plan”. Accordingly, whilst we do not expect any rowing back on the Act’s plans, neither do we see evidence of an intention to go further.

• Charter: requires employers to encourage flexible working practices and to give every individual the opportunity to request and be considered for flexible working arrangements.
• ERA 2025: strengthened the existing right to request flexible working by requiring employers to consult with employees before refusing a request and for such refusal to be reasonable.

Unlikely to change: The Act’s requirement that requests for flexible working are only rejected reasonably arguably goes further than the requirements of the Charter. However, unlike the Charter, the Act doesn’t expect employers to “encourage” flexible working. It seems to us that the Act and Charter are, however, broadly aligned on the issue of flexible working and we do not expect rights in this area to be further enhanced.

Trade union access

• Charter: requires members to engage with their employees and involve them in decision making. Andy’s Mayor Manifesto goes further, calling for trade union access to workers and the workplace to be made a contractual commitment in public sector commissioning.
• ERA 2025: grants trade union officials a wider right to access the workplace for recruitment, organising and collective bargaining purposes.

Unlikely to change: The Act brings legislation closer to both the Charter and the Mayoral Manifesto positions on employee representation and voice, perhaps reflecting Burnham’s ambition but achieving what he lacked the power to achieve as Mayor. Given the ambitious changes introduced by the Act and its broad alignment with what we believe Burnham’s views on this matter to be, we do not expect further enhancements to the Act’s position – but neither do we expect it to be in anyway.

• Charter: requires members to demonstrate effective people management practices, including investment in training and development.
• ERA 2025: does not impose comparable obligations on employers in relation to training and development. 

One to watch: Burnham’s long-standing emphasis on training young people through apprenticeships and work placements could pave the way for future people management legislation. Recent announcements regarding technical education underline that this will be a key focus for future policy. Whether it affects employment rights is a separate question but we consider this an area that employers should keep their eye on.