Managing Zero-Hours, Flexible Contracts and Fair Scheduling in Care Services
Flexible and zero-hours contracts are a long-standing feature of adult social care. When used well, they can support workforce choice and service responsiveness. When poorly governed, they are associated with financial insecurity, disengagement and workforce instability.
This article sits within Fair Work, Pay, Progression & Responsible Employment and contributes to broader social value discussions about fair treatment, predictability and responsible scheduling.
Commissioners increasingly focus on how flexibility is balanced with fairness.
How commissioners view flexible and zero-hours contracts
Commissioners do not automatically view zero-hours contracts as negative. Their concern is whether flexibility is genuinely mutual or primarily shifts risk onto workers.
Key questions commissioners ask include:
- Do staff have reasonable predictability of income?
- Are rotas issued with sufficient notice?
- Is work fairly allocated?
- Can staff decline work without penalty?
Where answers are unclear, commissioners may view the workforce model as unstable.
Fair scheduling as a workforce protection measure
Fair scheduling includes:
- Advance rota publication
- Transparent allocation of hours
- Clear processes for expressing availability
- Protection against excessive short-notice changes
These controls reduce stress, improve retention and support continuity of care.
Operational example 1: Rota transparency improving staff engagement
A domiciliary care provider relied heavily on zero-hours staff to manage fluctuating demand. The context included staff dissatisfaction due to unpredictable hours and last-minute changes.
The support approach introduced a digital availability and rota system allowing staff to set preferences and view rotas two weeks in advance. Managers were required to justify short-notice changes.
Day-to-day delivery included weekly checks on rota stability and staff feedback. Coordinators received training on fair allocation and communication.
Effectiveness was evidenced through improved staff satisfaction, reduced last-minute cancellations and increased availability during peak periods.
Balancing flexibility with progression and stability
Flexible contracts should not prevent access to progression, training or development. Commissioners may challenge providers where zero-hours staff are excluded from opportunities.
Good practice includes:
- Equal access to training and supervision
- Opportunities to move into guaranteed-hours contracts
- Clear communication about pathways and options
Operational example 2: Transitioning staff into guaranteed hours
A residential provider identified a group of zero-hours staff consistently working full-time patterns. The context suggested hidden dependency and financial insecurity.
The support approach reviewed average hours over six months and offered guaranteed-hours contracts to eligible staff. This was supported by financial modelling and workforce planning.
Day-to-day delivery included updated rotas, clearer accountability and reduced reliance on agency cover. Supervision supported staff through the transition.
Effectiveness was evidenced through improved retention, reduced agency spend and positive commissioner feedback on workforce stability.
Managing flexibility during service pressure
During periods of high demand, fair scheduling becomes even more important. Providers need clear escalation processes to avoid over-reliance on goodwill or informal pressure.
Operational example 3: Fair escalation during winter pressure
During winter demand, a provider experienced increased call-outs. The context risked excessive short-notice requests and staff fatigue.
The support approach implemented a voluntary escalation rota with enhanced pay for additional shifts, clear rest requirements and opt-in participation.
Day-to-day delivery involved daily workload reviews and fatigue monitoring. Managers tracked uptake and ensured rest periods were respected.
Effectiveness was evidenced through maintained service continuity without increased sickness or turnover, and positive staff feedback captured in supervision records.
Commissioner expectation
Commissioner expectation: commissioners expect flexible contracts to be managed fairly, with transparency, predictability and access to progression. Workforce models that shift excessive risk onto staff are viewed as unsustainable.
Regulator / Inspector expectation
Regulator / Inspector expectation (e.g. CQC): inspectors expect staffing arrangements to support safe, consistent care. Poor scheduling practices can indicate leadership and governance weaknesses.
Fair scheduling is therefore integral to quality and safety.