Flexibility under pressure: A practical guide to navigating new labour laws in food

Key takeaways:

• Flexible labour models are being reshaped, with new rules on guaranteed hours and shift notice limiting last-minute scheduling.
• Rising Statutory Sick Pay obligations and tighter enforcement are increasing costs and reducing room for error, especially for smaller operators.
• Compliance now depends on consistent, well-documented processes, as regulators shift from reactive complaints to proactive inspection.

For decades, the food industry has relied on a simple premise: flexibility keeps production moving. Whether it’s ramping up for seasonal demand, covering last-minute absences or responding to retailer pressure, labour models have been built to absorb constant change.

That model is now under strain. A series of employment reforms – starting in the UK but reflecting a broader tightening across other markets – is beginning to push into the detail of how businesses actually operate. Not just policy, but the mechanics: rotas, payroll, record-keeping, hiring decisions. Areas that, until now, have largely been left to internal judgement.

Dominic Cooper, employment law specialist at Citation, says the pressure is already showing. “Several of the most immediate and operationally challenging changes under the Employment Rights Act are already reshaping workforce management in food manufacturing, particularly around absence management, scheduling, and compliance processes,” he explains. “It’s not just a legal change – it feeds directly into payroll systems, absence tracking and overall staffing resilience.”

Some of these changes are already in effect. The revised Statutory Sick Pay framework introduced in April is one. It may look procedural, but in practice it changes how quickly businesses need to respond to short-notice absence, and how those gaps are covered across shifts.

At the same time, the introduction of the Fair Work Agency, alongside stronger expectations around record-keeping, is changing how closely employers are monitored. Oversight is becoming more active. Documentation is no longer a back-office exercise – it’s something businesses may need to evidence at any point.

Another requirement arrives in October. Employers will be expected to take ‘all reasonable steps’ to prevent sexual harassment, including by third parties. In a food manufacturing or foodservice environment, that extends beyond direct employees. It means looking again at risk assessments, reporting routes and training, and making sure they apply across agency workers, contractors and visitors as well as permanent staff.

These reforms are UK-driven and primarily apply across Great Britain, with phased rollout through 2026-2027, while Northern Ireland may adopt certain elements on a slightly different timeline.

The end of one-sided flexibility?

The most significant changes, though, are still to come. In particular, the way flexible contracts are used is set to change in ways that will be difficult to ignore.

“The proposed reforms introduce three key rights: access to guaranteed hours, reasonable notice of shifts, and compensation for short-notice cancellations or changes,” says Cooper. “While zero-hours contracts are not being banned, the reforms are designed to rebalance flexibility and reduce one-sided arrangements.”

That rebalancing comes with clear obligations. “Where workers regularly exceed a certain number of hours across a set threshold – likely around 12 weeks – employers will be required to offer guaranteed-hours contracts,” he explains. “Seasonal peaks are expected to be treated as exemptions, though clarity is still developing. Employees can decline these contracts, but obligations to re-offer will arise again if conditions are met.”

This will become an ongoing requirement, particularly for businesses where hours fluctuate week to week. Tracking who qualifies, when offers need to be made and whether they need to be repeated adds another layer of administration.

Shift planning will also come under more scrutiny. “The introduction of a ‘reasonable notice’ requirement for shifts, not yet fully defined but suggested to be no more than seven days, will significantly affect businesses that currently rely on short-notice scheduling,” says Cooper. That alone changes how rotas are built.

There’s also a financial angle. Employers will need to provide compensation where shifts are cancelled or materially changed without sufficient notice. What used to be a routine adjustment now carries a cost.

Absence costs and operational strain

Alongside structural changes to contracts and scheduling, reforms to Statutory Sick Pay are introducing more immediate financial and operational pressures. While intended to improve worker wellbeing, they come with clear cost implications.

“Any increase in short-term absence is likely to disproportionately affect smaller or margin-sensitive food manufacturers, where operational resilience is already finely balanced,” says Cooper. “Even small fluctuations in attendance can quickly disrupt production, impacting output and quality control and requiring work redistribution across already stretched teams.”

That redistribution is rarely straightforward. Someone has to pick up the work, whether through overtime, agency cover or shifting priorities elsewhere, and each comes with its own cost. “That carries additional cost, whether through increased pressure on existing staff, greater reliance on agency labour, or delays to non-essential tasks.” Larger organisations may be able to absorb that more easily; smaller ones, less so.

Even if absence levels stay the same, the financial picture still changes. “Even where absence levels remain stable, costs are still likely to rise due to higher statutory obligations per absence,” notes Cooper. “That adds cumulative pressure to already tight margins and can limit investment elsewhere.”

There’s a longer-term argument behind these reforms – reducing presenteeism, improving productivity – but those gains are unlikely to be immediate. For now, most businesses are dealing with the cost side of the equation.

A tougher enforcement landscape

If the rules are tightening, the way they’re enforced is changing as well. The Fair Work Agency is expected to play a more active role, shifting the balance away from complaint-led enforcement.

“The Fair Work Agency marks a shift towards more proactive enforcement, although its powers will be phased in over time,” says Cooper. “While HMRC already enforces minimum wage compliance, the FWA will shortly extend similar scrutiny to Statutory Sick Pay and holiday pay, and will cover more areas in due course.”

That reduces reliance on individual employees raising concerns. “Enforcement will no longer depend solely on employees bringing claims,” he explains. “Breaches are more likely to be identified through inspection activity rather than internal reporting.”

That changes what compliance looks like in practice. Having the right policies is only part of the picture; being able to show how they are applied matters just as much.

“Although core legal obligations remain largely unchanged, the emphasis is shifting from theoretical compliance to demonstrable compliance,” says Cooper. Payroll records, absence data, training logs – all of it needs to be accurate, accessible and consistent.

In multi-site operations, that consistency can be difficult to maintain, as different managers and ways of working lead to small variations in how rules are applied. Under a more active enforcement model, those differences can quickly become risk points.

Getting ahead of what comes next

Further changes are already in the pipeline. Reforms to unfair dismissal rules, expected in 2027, will reduce the qualifying period for employee protection, bringing risk much earlier in the employment cycle.

“With unfair dismissal reforms due in 2027, businesses should already be strengthening early-stage HR processes,” says Cooper. “Many employers currently use six-month probation periods, which they often extend. From 2027, this will carry greater risk as employees gain protection earlier.”

That shifts the focus to the first few months of employment. Performance needs to be assessed properly, feedback given regularly, and any issues addressed before they become harder to manage. Recruitment becomes more critical as well. “Stronger hiring decisions, improved induction training and clearer expectations from day one will reduce the risk of issues emerging after employees gain protection.”

There are also limits on how businesses can respond if things do change. Tighter restrictions on ‘fire and rehire’ practices will make it harder to impose contractual changes without agreement, increasing the need for consultation and forward planning.

For smaller businesses, the challenge isn’t just compliance but capacity. Many don’t have large HR teams or dedicated legal support. Even so, the basics still go a long way. “The most realistic and high-impact approach to compliance is to focus on consistently doing the fundamentals well rather than building complex internal HR systems.” Clear contracts, up-to-date policies and reliable documentation provide a strong foundation.

Consistency is just as important. Handling absence, performance issues and disciplinary matters in the same way across teams reduces the risk of problems later. Keeping records of those decisions matters too, particularly if they need to be explained.

“The most effective strategy is not to overburden the business with HR infrastructure,” Cooper adds, “but to build simple, repeatable processes, maintain essential compliance documents and ensure expert support is available when needed.”