UK still falling short of international labour standards, say European Committee of Social Rights

On Wednesday, the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR) published its conclusions 2025 in respect of the articles of the European Social Charter relating to Labour Rights.

In the framework of the reporting procedure, the ECSR adopted 213 conclusions: 42 conclusions of conformity with the Charter and 171 conclusions of non conformity concerning: Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Denmark, Estonia, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, the Netherlands in respect of Curaçao, North Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Serbia, the Slovak Republic, Türkiye, Ukraine and the United Kingdom. The conclusions examine the application of the Social Charter to those states parties that have not accepted the collective complaints procedure which enables complaints about rights violations to be brought before the Committee by social partners, international NGOs and others.

The 2025 report focuses on specific provisions relating to just conditions of work, safe and healthy working conditions, fair remuneration, the right to organise and bargain collectively, and equal opportunities for women and men in employment.

Aoife Nolan, President of the ECSR said:

Despite some signs of progress, the Committee is very concerned by the long way to go in many states parties when it comes to guaranteeing key work-related rights protected by the European Social Charter. The Committee’s 2025 Conclusions make clear that significant ongoing challenges include excessive working hours, barriers to effective collective bargaining, inadequate safeguards for certain types of jobs (those in the gig or platform economy; telework; jobs requiring intense attention or high performance) and ongoing gender pay inequality.

The ECSR identified issues of non-conformity, notably:

• Excessive Working Hours: In several states, some occupational sectors still allow weekly working times exceeding 60 hours, undermining the health and safety of workers.
• Inadequate Protection for Vulnerable category of workers: Many states have yet to extend adequate health and safety protections to vulnerable categories of workers such as: digital platform workers; teleworkers; posted workers; workers employed through subcontracting; self-employed workers; workers exposed to environmental-related risks such as climate change and pollution..
• Gender Pay Gap and Parity: The persistence of gender-based inequalities in remuneration and decision-making roles was observed in most States, with little measurable progress have been made in reducing the gender pay gap or increasing women’s representation on company boards.
• Barriers to Effective Collective Bargaining: Structural and legal obstacles continue to hinder collective bargaining coverage and the exercise of the right to strike in many states. Important obstacles include blanket prohibitions on civil servants, and more specifically on  the police prison services employees, air traffic control and healthcare sector workers. .
• Failures to Address New and Emerging Risks: The lack of comprehensive responses to psychosocial and climate change-related risks in the workplace was observed in many States, particularly affecting vulnerable workers with insufficient legal protections in place, including for the right to disconnect.The ECSR encourages states parties to act promptly on recommendations, strengthen protections for all workers, and promote equality and collective rights as the bedrock of social justice and inclusion across Europe.

In relation to the UK, the report covered the following areas with the attached conclusions:

Article 3 – Right to safe and healthy working conditions; Paragraph 1 – Safety and health regulations

The Committee concludes that the situation the United Kingdom is not in conformity with Article 3§1 of the 1961 Charter on the grounds that:
• workers do not have the right to disconnect;
• certain categories of self-employed workers are not covered by occupational health and safety regulations;
• certain categories of domestic workers are not covered by occupational health and safety regulations.

Article 3 – Right to safe and healthy working conditions; Paragraph 2 – Enforcement of safety and health regulations

The Committee concludes that the situation in the United Kingdom is not in conformity with Article 3§2 of the 1961 Charter on the ground that certain categories of domestic workers are not subject to supervision in respect of health and safety at work.

Article 5 – Right to organise

The Committee concludes that the situation in the United Kingdom is not in conformity with Article 5 of the 1961 Charter on the grounds that:
• no measures have been taken to encourage or strengthen the positive freedom of association of gig workers;
• the right to organise is not guaranteed to members of the armed forces.

Article 6 – Right to bargain collectively; Paragraph 1 – Joint consultation

The Committee concludes that the situation in United Kingdom is not in conformity with Article
6§1 of the 1961 Charter on the ground that it has not been established that:
• joint consultations have been carried out on all matters of mutual interest;
• joint consultations have been held on issues relating to the digital transition

Article 6 – Right to bargain collectively; Paragraph 2 – Negotiation procedures

The Committee concludes that the situation in the United Kingdom is not in conformity with Article 6§2 of the 1961 Charter on the grounds that:
• the promotion of collective bargaining is not sufficient;
• it has not been established that sufficient measures have been taken to promote the right to collective bargaining in respect of workers in the platform and gig economy

Article 6 – Right to bargain collectively; Paragraph 4 – Collective action

The Committee concludes that the situation in United Kingdom is not in conformity with Article 6§4 of the 1961 Charter even taking into account the possibility of subjecting the right to collective action to restrictions under Article 31, on the grounds that:
• the police are denied the right to strike;
• prison officers are denied the right to strike;
• members of the armed forces are denied the right to strike and it has not been established that are other means by which members of the armed forces can effectively negotiate the terms and conditions of employment, including remuneration.

Despite the introduction of the Employment Rights Act 2025, the UK still remains in breach of international standards in all these areas. The ECSR draws extensively on the IER’s submission to the report, commenting, for example:

“In their comments, IER indicates that employers can undermine trade union rights of workers by disguising the classification of the latter as self-employed. IER refers to the case of R (Independent Workers Union of Great Britain) v. Central Arbitration Committee, Roo Foods Ltd (t/a Deliveroo) [2023] and indicates that in this case, the domestic courts considered that Deliveroo drivers did not fall within the definition of “worker” because they were not in an employment relationship since they had the right to engage a substitute to undertake their work, and hence they were self-employed. A consequence of this judgment, according to IER, is that such workers are not entitled to form a trade union. IER also underlines that the right to use a substitute is unilaterally inserted in the contracts by the employer. Therefore, gig workers, such as Deliveroo riders, are barred from forming their own trade union which is, according to IER, a fundamental violation of Article 5 of the Charter. IER states that although it is not known how many gig workers are engaged in the delivery sector and subject to substitution clauses, they assert that the estimated number of gig workers currently totals 4.7 million in the UK.

The Committee understands from the submissions of the IER with regard the case of Independent Workers Union of Great Britain v. Central Arbitration Committee (2023) that the simple insertion of substitution clauses in employment contracts, or clauses denying any obligation to accept or provide work, even where such terms do not reflect the real employment relationship, are enough to undermine trade union rights of these workers. The Committee is not aware of any measures taken by the Government to guarantee trade union rights of platform workers whose employment contract include a “substitution clause”. In addition, the Committee also notes from outside sources (Keith Ewing, Judicial Backpedaling on Trade Union Rights in the Gig Economy: Deliveroo in the United Kingdom Supreme Court, 13 December 2023), that according to the Central Arbitration Committee (which is the statutory body that deals with issues relating to trade union recognition and collective bargaining) in practice substitution is very rare because there is no need for a rider to engage a substitute as there is no need to log onto the App if the rider does not want to accept a job or is not available for work.”

Read the full UK report here.