New section 104BA of the ERA 1996 makes provision for an employee to be treated as unfairly dismissed if the reason (or principal reason where there is more than one reason) for the dismissal is that the employee:
accepted – or proposed to accept – an offer from their employer of guaranteed hours made as a result of the duty to make such offer under new section 27BA(1) of the ERA 1996;
rejected – or proposed to reject – an offer from their employer of guaranteed hours made as a result of the duty to make such offer under section 27BA(1) of the ERA 1996. This includes cases where an employee is treated as having rejected an offer as they have not responded;
brought proceedings against the employer for breach of the provisions inserted by sections 1 and 5 (under section 27BG(4), (5) or 7(b) or section 27BY(5) of the ERA 1996), or alleged that there were circumstances which would constitute grounds for bringing such proceedings, whether or not the worker referred to the possibility of bringing such proceedings. It is immaterial whether or not the employer failed to comply with the duties they are alleged to have breached but the claim must be made in good faith. Subsection (3) refers to s. 104 ERA 1996 in relation to automatic unfair dismissal due to the assertion of a statutory right in respect of other proceedings under section 27BG of the ERA 1996; or
believes the employee is, entitled to a guaranteed hours offer, and the reason for the dismissal is that the employer sought to avoid the necessity to comply with their duty to make a guaranteed hours offer.
	Subsection (7) defines ‘reference period’ with reference to the meaning it is given in new section 27BA(4) of the ERA 1996.
Part 1: Employment Rights Zero hours workers, etc New Section 104BA