No. An exclusivity clause in a zero-hours contract, one that tries to stop a worker taking or accepting work elsewhere, is unenforceable under Employment Rights Act 1996 s.27A, regardless of what the contract actually says. This article is for the employer who has such a clause in a contract already, or is being tempted to add one, and needs to understand exactly what the law bans, why it exists, and what can legitimately be done instead.
> Quick answer: Section 27A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 makes any exclusivity clause in a zero-hours contract unenforceable, including one that makes working elsewhere conditional on the employer's consent. This has applied since 2015. An employer cannot legally prevent, penalise or refuse to offer further shifts to a zero-hours worker because they took other work. Genuine confidentiality and conflict-of-interest protections remain available, but exclusivity itself does not.
What the ban actually covers
Employment Rights Act 1996 s.27A was inserted specifically to address zero-hours contracts, defining them and then directly addressing a practice that had become common: employers writing contracts that stopped a worker taking any other paid work, while simultaneously offering that worker no guaranteed hours at all. The unfairness is straightforward to see once it is stated plainly. A worker with genuinely no guaranteed income from the contract cannot be expected to also give up the ability to earn money elsewhere, since doing so leaves them with no certainty of income from either source.
The provision makes any exclusivity term in a zero-hours contract unenforceable by the employer against the worker. This covers a straightforward "you may not work for any other employer" clause, and it also covers the softer version some employers reached for once the direct ban was clear: a clause requiring the employer's consent before the worker takes other work. Section 27A(3) closes that gap too. A clause that makes working elsewhere conditional on the employer's permission is treated the same way as an outright ban, and it is equally unenforceable.
Why the clause being unenforceable matters in practice
An unenforceable clause is not simply void on paper while everything else continues as normal. It means the employer has no legal basis to act against a worker for taking other work, in any of the ways an employer might otherwise be tempted to. That includes disciplining the worker, terminating the arrangement, or simply reducing the shifts offered to them going forward as an informal penalty for working elsewhere. The Exclusivity Terms in Zero Hours Contracts (Redress) Regulations, in force since January 2016, specifically address the risk that an employer might not enforce the clause directly but instead retaliate informally, by making clear that a worker subjected to a detriment for exercising the right to work elsewhere has a route to redress.
This matters because the informal route is exactly where employers who accept the clause itself is unenforceable sometimes still cause a problem. Quietly offering someone fewer shifts because they took a second job elsewhere is not a safe workaround. It is the same substantive restriction the statute targets, achieved through the back door of shift allocation rather than a written clause, and it carries its own legal risk.
What an employer can still legitimately do
None of this leaves an employer with no protections at all. What is not permitted is a blanket restriction on the worker taking any other work purely because the current arrangement is zero-hours. What remains available, and legitimate, is protection targeted at a specific, genuine business risk rather than exclusivity for its own sake.
A confidentiality clause protecting information the worker is exposed to in this role remains enforceable in the ordinary way, on the same footing as the confidentiality obligations covered in our mutual NDA template guide, and it does not amount to an exclusivity restriction because it does not stop the worker taking other work, it only limits what they can do with confidential information from this one. A conflict of interest provision, requiring the worker to disclose if they take work with a direct competitor, or a role that creates a genuine conflict with their duties in this position, is a narrower and more defensible tool than blanket exclusivity, provided it is drafted to address an actual conflict rather than functioning as exclusivity by another name. A reasonable requirement to disclose other work commitments, so that shift scheduling can be managed sensibly, is different again from a right to refuse or veto that other work, and the distinction between disclosure and control is the one to keep clear when drafting.
The practical lesson for an employer who wants some assurance around availability is to build genuine guaranteed hours into the relationship if reliable availability actually matters to the business, rather than trying to extract exclusivity from an arrangement that is, by definition, not guaranteeing anything in return.
Zero-hours restrictions, what holds and what does not
| Restriction | Enforceable? |
|---|---|
| Ban on working for any other employer | No, unenforceable under ERA 1996 s.27A |
| Requiring the employer's consent before taking other work | No, also unenforceable under s.27A(3) |
| Reducing shifts as an informal penalty for working elsewhere | No, exposes the employer to a detriment claim |
| Confidentiality covering information from this role | Yes, enforceable in the ordinary way |
| Disclosure of a genuine conflict of interest, such as a competitor role | Generally yes, if narrowly drafted |
| Guaranteed minimum hours in exchange for genuine exclusivity | A different contract structure, not zero-hours |
Why this connects back to how the contract was set up
An exclusivity clause sitting in a zero-hours contract is often a symptom of the contract being built the wrong way round from the start, an attempt to get the flexibility of no guaranteed hours for the employer while still extracting a full-time-style commitment from the worker. Our companion piece on how to set up a zero-hours worker correctly covers the sequencing that avoids this: confirming genuine mutuality of obligation, getting the written statement of particulars right, and building holiday accrual into the arrangement from day one. Reading both articles together, before the contract is finalised, is the better order to do this in, since an exclusivity clause spotted and removed before signature costs nothing, while one discovered unenforceable after a dispute has already started costs considerably more in management time and, potentially, in a detriment claim.
Fixing an existing contract
If an existing zero-hours contract contains an exclusivity clause, the sensible move is to remove or amend it rather than leave an unenforceable term sitting in the document, since a contract full of terms that do not actually bind anyone undermines confidence in the rest of it too, and it may be worth starting fresh from the zero-hours contract template itself rather than patching an old one. Our guide on drafting a zero-hours contract with AI covers redrafting the affected clause, or the whole contract if it needs a wider refresh, through AI Legal Drafting, a live feature that assembles vetted England and Wales clauses rather than generating new legal wording, the same assembled-versus-invented distinction worth understanding first, and treat the output as a starting point for review given the workforce-wide implications if the same clause sits in multiple contracts. Send the corrected contract for e-signature once it is settled: electronic signatures are admissible for most commercial documents in England and Wales, with exceptions including deeds, wills, land transfers and lasting powers of attorney. Keep the signed, corrected contract in the same rooms as the rest of your workforce paperwork, and if the same exclusivity clause appears across several existing contracts, track the correction across your contract register so nothing gets missed.
This article is written for England and Wales, where the Employment Rights Act 1996 sets the exclusivity ban described above. If you employ zero-hours or casual workers elsewhere, this specific statute will not apply, but the underlying question, can a genuinely no-guaranteed-hours arrangement lawfully demand exclusivity in return, is the same one worth checking against your own jurisdiction's employment law.
Frequently asked questions
Can an employer legally include an exclusivity clause in a zero-hours contract?
No. Employment Rights Act 1996 s.27A makes any such clause unenforceable, including a version that requires the employer's consent before the worker takes other work. This has applied since 2015 and is not affected by what the contract itself states.
What happens if an employer punishes a zero-hours worker for taking a second job?
The worker may have a route to redress under the Exclusivity Terms in Zero Hours Contracts (Redress) Regulations, which address detriments such as reduced shifts or termination linked to exercising the right to work elsewhere. Informally penalising a worker achieves the same restriction the statute targets and carries its own legal risk.
Can an employer ask a zero-hours worker to disclose other jobs?
Generally yes, where the request relates to a genuine conflict of interest, such as a role with a direct competitor, or to managing shift scheduling sensibly. This is different from requiring consent before the worker accepts other work, which remains unenforceable under s.27A(3).
Does the exclusivity ban apply to all casual workers?
It applies specifically to contracts that meet the statutory definition of a zero-hours contract, no certainty of any work being made available. Where a worker has some guaranteed minimum hours, the arrangement is not a zero-hours contract in the statutory sense, and the exclusivity position may be different. Check the specific contract structure.
What can an employer do instead of an exclusivity clause?
Rely on confidentiality and narrowly drafted conflict-of-interest provisions rather than a blanket restriction, or, where reliable availability genuinely matters, offer a contract with guaranteed minimum hours in exchange for a reasonable exclusivity commitment. A zero-hours contract, by definition, cannot fairly demand exclusivity for nothing in return.
Put the exclusivity position in writing
Remove an unenforceable exclusivity clause and rebuild the contract on terms that actually hold, drafted from vetted England and Wales clauses and signed in the same place you drafted it. The free tier gives you three rooms and twenty-five active links, forever, with no card required; the AI drafter and e-signature start on Pro at £19 a month. Start for free and fix the clause before it becomes a detriment claim.
This article is general information, not legal advice. Exclusivity and detriment claims under employment law are fact-sensitive, and an existing contract or an active dispute deserves review by a qualified adviser.
Sources
- Zero-hours contracts, exclusivity terms unenforceable: Employment Rights Act 1996, section 27A, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/section/27A
- The Exclusivity Terms in Zero Hours Contracts (Redress) Regulations 2015, in force from January 2016: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/2021
- Written statement of employment particulars: Employment Rights Act 1996, section 1, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/section/1
- Zero-hours contracts overview and background to the exclusivity ban: House of Commons Library, https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06553/
- Electronic signatures, validity and exceptions: Law Commission, Electronic execution of documents (2019), https://lawcom.gov.uk/project/electronic-execution-of-documents/