Dr. Desmond Ryan:

Again, it comes back to the ability of an employer to contend that, for its specific business need, there may be circumstances where they can be justified. Of course, this is subject to safeguards protecting the workers. One safeguard is to make that argument as, under the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, one can only make it successfully if one can show that one's specific business need justifies a fixed-term contract or, in this case, a zero-hours contract. It is not a free for all. It is not the case that some empty incantation can be invoked by the employer. They must be able to demonstrate concrete reasons. The case law on this is very robust. It says that the employer cannot simply have recourse to an empty formula but must explain, with reference to its business and its specific sectoral need, why it can only offer this type of contract. To return to the question of why we cannot simply ban zero-hour contracts, obviously that approach is open but it admits of no possible circumstance where it could be permissible or desirable as a contract model. Again, I refer to the other forms of what are referred to as atypical work such as part-time, fixed-term and agency work and the recognition that, in certain circumstances, they can suit the needs both of employers and workers. As long as there is a degree of regulation ensuring a minimum safeguard for the employee they are not necessarily, in and of themselves, to be prohibited.