Zero-hours contract exclusivity clause

Short answer

No. If you are on a genuine zero-hours contract, your employer cannot lawfully stop you from working for someone else. Any clause in your contract that bans you from working for another employer, or that requires you to get your employer’s permission before doing so, is legally unenforceable. You are free to ignore it.

The legal basis

The key provision is section 27A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, inserted by the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. A zero-hours contract is defined as a contract where the employer does not guarantee you any minimum hours of work, and you are only paid for work you actually do.

Under section 27A, any term in a zero-hours contract that either prohibits you from doing work or performing services under another contract or arrangement, or prohibits you from doing so without the employer’s consent, is unenforceable against you. So an exclusivity clause of that kind simply has no legal effect. Your employer cannot sue you or enforce it in court.

A later measure, the Exclusivity Terms for Zero Hours Workers (Unenforceability and Redress) Regulations 2022, extended similar protection to low-income workers on non-zero-hours contracts whose net average weekly wages do not exceed the lower earnings limit. So the protection is not confined to zero-hours workers in the strictest sense.

Protection against being punished for it

The law goes further than just making the clause unenforceable. There are specific protections against your employer retaliating:

If you are an employee, dismissing you because you worked for another employer in breach of an exclusivity clause is automatically unfair. Importantly, you do not need the usual two years of continuous service to bring this type of unfair dismissal claim. The normal qualifying period does not apply where the dismissal is for this reason.

If you are a worker (not an employee), you have the right not to be subjected to a detriment by your employer for failing to comply with such a clause. A detriment could include losing shifts, being demoted, or being treated worse because you took other work.

Where the position is less clear cut

A few situations need care, because the outcome depends on the precise facts:

First, whether your contract is genuinely a zero-hours contract. If your contract in fact guarantees you some minimum hours, it may not meet the section 27A definition, though the 2022 Regulations may still assist you if you are a low earner below the lower earnings limit.

Second, the difference between an exclusivity clause and other legitimate restrictions. Section 27A only strikes down clauses that prevent you working elsewhere or require consent to do so. It does not automatically override a genuine confidentiality obligation, or a reasonable restriction protecting the employer’s legitimate business interests such as not working for a direct competitor in a way that misuses confidential information. A blanket ban on any other work is unenforceable; a narrow, properly drafted restrictive covenant protecting trade secrets is a different legal question.

Third, practical conflicts. Your employer can still expect you to be available for shifts you have actually accepted, and can decline to offer you future shifts (subject to the detriment protection above). They cannot punish you for the fact of having other work, but ordinary scheduling and reliability issues are separate.

Practical next steps

1. Check the wording of your contract to see exactly what it says. Look for anything requiring the employer’s consent before you take other work, or banning other work outright.

2. Confirm whether it is genuinely a zero-hours arrangement, or whether you are a low earner potentially covered by the 2022 Regulations.

3. If you want to take the other job, you are entitled to do so despite an exclusivity clause. You do not need to ask permission.

4. Keep a written record if your employer reduces your shifts or treats you worse after you take other work, as this may amount to an unlawful detriment or, for employees, an automatically unfair dismissal.

5. If you are dismissed or suffer a detriment for this reason, a claim can be made to the Employment Tribunal. There is normally a strict time limit of three months less one day from the act complained of, and you must first contact Acas to start Early Conciliation. Do not let the deadline slip.

Information gaps that could change the answer

The advice above assumes a genuine zero-hours contract in England and Wales. It would help to know whether your contract guarantees any minimum hours, your approximate weekly pay, whether you are classed as an employee or a worker, and the exact wording of the clause. If the “restriction” is actually a non-compete or confidentiality clause rather than a straightforward ban on other work, the analysis is more complex and would need to be looked at separately.