12/05/2026

The Department for the Economy (DfE) has opened an initial consultation and survey to inform the co-design of a Northern Ireland Good Jobs Charter (opened 30 April 2026; closes 31 July 2026).

The consultation output is intended to shape the initial design of the Charter, with a further consultation expected later. A co-design group (potentially using the Engagement Forum) will be supported by the Labour Relations Agency (LRA) and DfE, with employer bodies, trade unions and other subject matter experts invited to participate

The survey requires participants to choose a preferred Charter model, then moves into a set of “select all that apply” questions on what initiatives should count as indicators of a good job, structured around the Carnegie UK Trust’s seven job quality measures. (See indicators set out below)

Background- What is the Good Jobs Charter?

 In its response document to the Good Jobs Bill public consultation, the

Executive stated a commitment to “employment rights legislation and a Good

Work Charter” as part of the wider Good Jobs agenda

The Charter is intended to be a separate but complementary strand to the Good

Jobs Employment Rights Bill, to support improved job quality beyond minimum legal

standards

Good Jobs Charter Survey Questions

Question 1 – What “type” of Charter should NI have?

The survey asks if the Charter should be a (1)commitment, an (2) aspiration, or an (3) evidenced guarantee (potentially supported by employee testimony).

There are three options for respondents to choose from:

• Option 1: Light-touch LRA best-practice guide: a practical guide describing indicators of “good jobs”, without formal assessment or accreditation.
• Option 2: Specific Code of Practice: non-statutory, but potentially influential (including in tribunal contexts) as a benchmark for acceptable practice.
• Option 3: Formally assessed Charter: an accreditation-style model with assessment, governance and ongoing administration, potentially linked to policy levers such as procurement conditions.

 While the question presents three options the descriptions under each option are, in our view,  not evenly balanced.

We believe that a light-touch approach that supports improvement without creating new compliance obligations in a labour market where employers are already competing hard for skills and facing new laws is the preferred approach.

However, it appears from the language used in Option 3 (“most impressive”, references to procurement requirements and growth in “good jobs”) it is directing  respondents towards that option. By contrast, Option 1 is described more briefly and more as a guide than as a policy tool.

Question 1-  Seven “Good Job Indicator” Sections

Each section asks employers to identify which initiatives they consider to be “sound indicators of a good job” (asking to select all that apply). The questions are marked required and, in practice, respondents must select at least one option to proceed. After each question the survey also invites “additional comments”,

However, without selecting an option respondents cannot progress to the next question, forcing them to choose at least one of the pre-selected options, even if none are suitable.

This approach risks an outcome of endorsement by default rather than by choice.

Below is a high-level summary of each section, with examples of the options listed under each (not exhaustive):

(i)           Indicator 1: Terms of employment (security, guaranteed hours, underemployment)

• Sample options: issuing contracts before start date; reviewing actual hours worked; avoiding exploitative zero-hours contracts; publishing rotas well in advance; providing notice (e.g., four weeks) for rota changes; clearer pathways for agency/temporary staff into permanent roles.
• Commentary: Many options read as operational “how-to” controls that may suit larger employers with HR capacity but can be onerous for smaller workplaces where flexibility is essential and resourcing is tight.

(ii)          Indicator 2: Pay and benefits (pay adequacy and satisfaction)

• Sample options: Living Wage Foundation membership / paying the Real Living Wage; sick pay for all staff (including day-one sick pay); guaranteed minimum weekly hours (e.g., 16 hours unless requested otherwise); annual pay reviews aiming to match inflation; contractors applying similar conditions to their staff.
• Commentary: The options may be difficult for SMEs to absorb quickly (especially where margins are tight). It also blends “nice to have” initiatives with items that could become quasi-standards if later tied to procurement.

(iii)        Indicator 3: Health, safety and psychosocial wellbeing (physical injury and mental health)

• Sample options: a health and wellbeing policy; employee assistance programme; wellbeing questions in staff surveys; managers trained to have wellbeing conversations; mental health training/first aiders; reasonable adjustments for disability; wellbeing action plans with review of impact.
• Commentary: The options mix measurable outcomes (e.g. retention/ absence) with process indicators (policies, champions, training). For smaller employers, the “policy infrastructure” implied may be disproportionate compared with practical day-to-day management.

(iv)        Indicator 4: Job design and nature of work (skills use, control, progression, purpose)

• Sample options: anonymised applications; job adverts in clear language and stating flexible working; EDI monitoring/targets; staff EDI groups (e.g., menopause or carers groups); mediation/ADR options; staff engagement forums; voluntary trade union recognition; recycling/cycle-to-work/volunteering policies.
• Commentary: These are largely organisational development initiatives. Many are positive, but bundling them into a single “job design” indicator can create a sense that a wide set of policies are expected of all employers, regardless of size.

(v)          Indicator 5: Social support and cohesion (peer support and line management)

• Sample options: regular 1-2-1s and performance reviews; training budgets and development plans; induction plans; staff recognition awards; whistleblowing/raising concerns policies; pulse surveys with action; manager coaching training; evidence of low grievance levels around bullying/harassment.
• Commentary: The options are extensive and can feel like an “HR maturity model”. For SMEs, the intent may be achievable, but the implied documentation burden could be significant.

(vi)        Indicator 6: Voice and representation (information, involvement, trade unions)

• Sample options: regular consultation and feedback loops; suggestion mechanisms; monthly team meetings/newsletters; transparency on key decisions/financial information; staff forums; an open approach to trade union engagement (access, facilities, time off for duties, voluntary recognition, collective bargaining where it exists).
• Commentary: This section is framed strongly around union engagement as a marker of “good jobs”. Many employers will support constructive dialogue, but the options wording can read as a checklist rather than reflecting the diversity of other effective voice arrangements across sectors and sizes.

(vii)       Indicator 7: Work–life balance (hours, overtime and flexibility)

• Sample options: hybrid/home/mobile working; flexible start/finish; compressed hours; part-time/job share; equipping staff with tools for flexible work; regular review of flexible working; commitments to consider requests within 28 days; ensuring job adverts reference flexibility where appropriate.
• Commentary: This is one of the more practically framed sections and aligns with current recruitment realities. However, these may be harder to deliver for very small employers without dedicated HR support.

Commentary

Employers in Northern Ireland are already competing in a tough labour market. Any Charter that evolves into a compliance regime, especially if connected to funding or procurement conditions, risks adding cost without clear evidence it will improve productivity or job quality in a way that is sustainable across all sectors.

NI’s economy is predominantly made up of SMEs. Smaller businesses may share these aspirations in principle, but could struggle to achieve in all areas. If the goal is to raise standards, the approach should be proportionate: clear guidance, good-practice examples, and signposting to existing LRA and Equality Commission resources—rather than new quasi-mandatory requirements.

By way of practical response guidance, as the survey requires at least one option to be selected in each section, respondents who do not agree with the available options should choose the closest fit and use the comments fields to explain their position. For example, respondents may note where an option is desirable but not always feasible, should be voluntary, or should apply only where proportionate. Responses may also suggest including an explicit “none of the above / not applicable” option to avoid forced endorsement.

Any Member who wishes to discuss the survey and/or their response in more detail should contact Michelle@eefni.org