Exclusive: government is hoping to avert a potentially damaging row at Labour conference

Angela Rayner has promised that Labour will give workers better pay and more security at work. Photograph: Lucy North/PA

Trade union leaders will meet senior ministers on Saturday for crunch talks on the government’s workers’ rights package, as the government looks to head off a potentially damaging row at Labour conference.

General secretaries from the 11 unions affiliated to Labour will meet Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, and Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, on the eve of conference to thrash out details of the package, sources have told the Guardian.

With just weeks to go until ministers are due to publish their proposals and several points of dispute still outstanding, ministers are hoping to avoid a damaging row with union backers so soon into the new government. Labour has promised to come forward with its proposals in the first 100 days of government, giving a month to do so.

One person briefed on the meeting’s agenda said there were still “a number of points of departure” between the government and unions, but that ministers were hoping to emerge with a final agreement. The person said ministers were hoping to emerge with a message of “peace in our time”.

Whitehall sources acknowledged there were still points of contention about the details of the bill, but expressed confidence they would be cleared up before the proposals are made.

Rayner has placed the workers’ rights package at the heart of what she wants to achieve in government, promising that Labour will give workers better pay and more security at work.

Among the promised measures are restrictions on zero-hours contracts, giving employees full rights from “day one” of their employment, and ending the practice of companies firing workers only to rehire them on worse terms.

Labour launched the idea of a package of stronger workers’ rights while in opposition in 2021. Since then however many unions feel the party has been trying to water them down under pressure from employers, and more recently, the Treasury.

Similar talks were held in May, when Labour tried to make changes to the proposals as shadow ministers finalised the text of their manifesto. Unions successfully resisted those changes, but those involved in the discussions say the areas of disagreement remain.

One area of dispute has been over zero-hours contracts. Ministers have now agreed with unions that workers should be able to sign a zero-hours contract if they would prefer one.

But some general secretaries are concerned that by promising to ban the imposition of “exploitative” zero-hours contracts it could leave room for some companies to claim their particular contracts are not exploitative.

“Our position is that that is an open door,” said one union source. “How do you define exploitative?”

Another point that needs to be agreed is whether companies should be allowed to impose a probationary period before workers get their full rights, and if so, how long.

Some unions want no probationary period at all, arguing that having one would undermine workers’ rights to participate in collective bargaining agreements with their colleagues.

Ministers have been divided over the issue, with Rayner pushing for a limited probationary period of around three months and Reynolds and the Treasury pushing for a much longer one of up to a year. The ministers are now reported to have agreed a compromise position of six months, but some union officials say this will still cause problems with their members. “That is a line in the sand for us,” said one.

Finally the two sides are in dispute over whether companies should be allowed to fire and rehire workers if they are faced with bankruptcy.

Ministers believe it is important that struggling companies are allowed to put workers on lower pay if the alternative is to make them redundant, but some in the union movement believe the concession will be exploited by employers.

Government officials however point out that bills put forward by Labour members of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords contained some allowance for companies to use the practice in certain limited circumstances. Both bills won the support of trade unions.