June 17, 2026
Last Updated on June 17, 2026
Government’s recent 80-page consultation signals an intention to pursue the introduction of new guaranteed hours offer (GHO) legislation – so how should providers respond? Anna Dabek, Employment Law Partner at Anthony Collins, investigates.
For many social care providers, proposals to guarantee a minimum number of paid hours for workers on zero-hour and low-hour contracts raise concerns about significant financial and administrative complexity, given the scale of operational challenges that implementing such changes would require.
Part of the Employment Rights Act 2025, the new GHO regime is due to be implemented sometime in 2027. No date has been set yet, hence some employers may anticipate that Government could struggle to maintain the political support and momentum needed to bring the proposal to fruition.
The consultation published on 2nd June 2026 was expected to shed more light on what the legislation might look like, and which workers will fall in or out of scope, but in reality, there are still significant gaps. The question of which workers will be eligible to receive a GHO from their employer is the main area of uncertainty.
All zero-hour workers (and this will include agency workers) are potentially in scope, provided they work ‘regularly’ during the reference period. ‘Regularly’ could mean working every week for a set number of weeks or it could mean working a set number of weeks and for a minimum number of hours each week. Government has not decided and outlines each of these options within the consultation.
For workers on guaranteed hours, Government is intending to set a threshold; all workers with a guaranteed number of hours below the threshold would be eligible for a GHO. Again, the consultation asks for views on what this threshold should be although Government’s preferred number is between eight and 20 hours per week. There is a big difference here, however, and employers have voiced their concern that a 20-hour threshold could bring permanent part-time workers into scope.
There is also a lack of clarity regarding the ‘reference period’ during which the hours of potentially eligible workers are monitored. It is proposed that the initial reference period should be 12 weeks, although the consultation is seeking views on longer subsequent reference periods, potentially 26 or 52 weeks. Providers may welcome the extension of these subsequent reference periods, as they could help to ensure that eligibility for a GHO is determined by sustained patterns of work rather than temporary variations in hours.
One other thing that providers may welcome is the suggestion that there could be a gap between the initial reference period used to assess an eligible workers’ hours and the subsequent reference period. This could make the administrative requirements associated with the GHO regime more manageable for employers. For example, if a 26-week gap is allowed, followed by a subsequent 26-week reference period, the employer would not ordinarily be required to undertake a further GHO assessment until around a year after the first offer was made.
Whilst it will not necessarily benefit care providers as such, it is also proposed that there should not be a requirement for employers to make a GHO to employees on fixed term contracts that are shorter than the preferred initial reference period of 12 weeks. This would include seasonal workers who may only be taken on for a period of say eight weeks before their contract expires. However, Government makes it clear that this will only be permitted where it is reasonable to do so and not as a vehicle to avoiding the duty to offer a GHO.
Which is more concerning, cost or administration?
For care providers, the impact of this legislation could be considerable. Many large providers, particularly in the homecare sector, rely heavily on workers on zero-hour contracts, many of whom prefer the flexibility they offer. The social care sector employs a higher-than-average proportion of women, many of whom value the flexibility that zero-hours arrangements can provide in balancing paid employment with caring responsibilities and other commitments.
While Government’s proposals are intended to address concerns about insecure work and potential misuse of flexible contracts, it is important to recognise that, in social care, such arrangements are often used to accommodate fluctuating demand and workforce preferences. Many providers are therefore concerned that reforms should preserve flexibility where it is genuinely valued by workers, whilst continuing to support staff retention and the delivery of consistent, high-quality care.
At a time when the care sector is experiencing significant issues with employee recruitment and retention, many employers would welcome an opportunity to bring more workers onto permanent contracts based on minimum guaranteed hours. However, it is important to recognise that some workers value the flexibility associated with zero-hours and low-hours arrangements. As a result, demand for guaranteed-hours contracts may not be universal across the workforce.
The financial impact for employers could be significant if they are required to offer low-hours and zero-hours workers minimum hours contracts of say 30 hours per week. Given the fluctuations in staffing, some providers may find that, in some weeks, workers are being paid but not working. This is a cost providers can ill afford.
Where workers wish to remain on zero hour and low guaranteed hour contracts, they may reject the GHO, hence the cost to the provider would not increase. However, the administrative cost will remain high.
Monitoring hours within the set reference periods and following the cycle of offering GHOs to eligible workers will be a timely and expensive process. Smaller providers may lack the administrative capacity, and larger providers may find the burden too onerous, even with robust systems. It will be interesting to see whether IT systems are developed for HR teams to help with this new regime.
How will a GHO be made?
After monitoring how many hours an individual employee has worked and how often, during the relevant reference period, employers will have to calculate a GHO and present it to the worker. That worker can accept or decline it. If they decide to accept, a new employment contract would have to be drawn up and signed accordingly. This process would have to be repeated at intervals, potentially every three months, regardless of whether an individual, eligible employee had declined an offer previously.
It is worth noting again that these provisions apply to agency workers too. It is the hirer and not the agency who should provide the GHO once the agency worker has met the eligibility requirements. If that agency worker accepts the GHO, their relationship with the agency terminates and they become a worker employed by the hirer.
Can employers opt out of GHO legislation?
The consultation outlines some narrow examples when employers will be exempt from offering a GHO, however, there is no mechanism for workers to opt out. Despite refusal after refusal of guaranteed terms, an employer must continue to make the offer to the worker at the required intervals. The only mechanism for an employer opting out of the duty is via collective agreement with a recognised union. This is unlikely to happen for two reasons.
First, it is a sector with fewer than 3% of workers in trade unions so there is a lack of support for recognition and collective bargaining. Second, it is unlikely a union would agree to such an opt out and bypass a key right for workers to have more guaranteed and regular hours.
Planning ahead
With so much uncertainty remaining about the proposed legislation for GHOs, it is going to be difficult for providers to plan ahead, and yet some forward thinking is crucial. Providers should aim to respond to the consultation (it closes on 25th August 2026) highlighting key areas of concern, and the potential impact on the sector.
The parameter for ‘regular hours’ has been set wide for the purposes of the consultation, which means employers cannot be certain how many of their workers will fall in or out of scope. Whilst waiting for clarity, providers could scenario plan looking at costings based on 20% of zero-hour workers coming within scope, or 40% or more, and also considering the financial implications of moving all potentially eligible workers to a permanent contract.
Despite this lengthy consultation document, there is still so much more providers need to know about the parameter and implications of this new regime. It looks like providers will have to stick to scenario planning for now. To view the consultation documents and respond online, visit GOV.UK.
Anna Dabek is an Employment Law Partner at Anthony Collins.