Casual employment

Roderick.

'Kick in the guts': Employers cry foul over casual truck driver's win 16 August 2018.
A landmark ruling that has granted a casual worker annual leave entitlements has sparked warnings from unions and employer groups that a clearer definition of casual employment is needed.
The full Federal Court of Australia on Thursday found a truck driver employed at a Rio Tinto mine under a labour hire arrangement as a casual, was not a casual under employment law, because of his regular and continuous pattern of work.
Under the Fair Work Act national employment standards, a casual employee is not entitled to annual leave which permanent employees receive. The Act does not provide a definition of a casual employee.
Innes Willox, chief executive of AI Group. Photo: Stewart Donn
The Australian Industry Group said the decision in Workpac v Skene which found Queensland truck driver Paul Skene was entitled to be paid accrued annual leave on termination of his employment was "disappointing" and has asked the
federal government to intervene to clarify the law.
Labour hire company Workpac had employed Mr Skene to work as a casual for two and a half years at two Central Queensland coal mines.
AIG chief executive Innes Willox said the widespread industry practice was that "an employee who is engaged as a casual and paid as a casual, is a casual for the purposes of award and legislative entitlements".
"[O]ne sensible step that should be taken without delay, is for Parliament to move to protect businesses and jobs by amending the Fair Work Act to clarify that an employee engaged as a casual and paid as a casual is a casual for the
purposes of the Act," Mr Willox said.
"This is the standard definition of casual employment, and the only workable definition
ACTU president, Michele O'Neil. Photo: Supplied
"The interpretation of the Fair Work Act that the Federal Court has adopted is inconsistent with industry practice and will potentially lead to a great deal of uncertainty for businesses. This in turn will not be good for jobs,
including for young people who rely heavily on casual employment."
The Australian Council of Trade Unions has also called for a clearer legal definition of casual employment even as it welcomed the federal court's interpretation.
It said the case brought by the Construction, Forestry, Mining, Maritime and Energy Union opened the door for other people who’ve been employed as casuals to make claims for unpaid leave entitlements.
“This is a major blow for employers who want to use casualisation to avoid their responsibility to their employees” Michele O'Neill
“This is a major blow for employers who want to use casualisation to avoid their responsibility to their employees," ACTU President Michele O’Neil said.
“This decision makes clear that employers seeking to avoid paying people’s entitlements can’t simply rely on classifying workers as casuals.”
CFMEU national president Tony Maher said the decision challenged a flawed business model used by labour hire firms.
"It means the end of the so-called ‘permanent casual’, which was always a rort,” he said.
“The labour hire industry will cry foul over this decision – the answer for them is to employ people under proper workplace arrangements that reflect the real nature of their work.”
Recruitment & Consulting Services Association of Australia & NZ chief executive Charles Cameron said the decision was a "kick in the guts" for business that would have "huge" liability implications.
Employees would be able to use the judgment to double dip on entitlements by claiming casual loadings but then claiming leave the loadings were supposed to replace, he said.
“This essentially creates a new ‘super employee’ category that has not existed previously, nor do we
believe it was ever the intent of the then ALP government law-makers to create.
“This will be a pivotal test case for casual employment in Australia.
University of Sydney Labour Law professor Shae McCrystal said another solution was to look at the way awards and agreements allowed employers to hire people and pay them as casuals when they were not working as casuals, but as permanent employees.
She said employers had long assumed that if they hired someone under the terms of an industrial award or enterprise agreement as a casual, they were not entitled to annual leave. But employees were entitled to annual leave under the
terms of the Fair Work Act as opposed to the awards and agreements.
"This is the first time the full federal court has said that the definition of casual under the national employment standards does not depend on how someone has been classified for the purposes of their engagement under an award or
agreement," she said.
A spokesman for Workplace Minister Craig Laundy said he was “reviewing the decision carefully, including any broader implications".
Related Article More than a million workers 'short-changed' on sick leave.
< www.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/workpl...20180816-p4zxtk.html >
* It is about time workers clawed back some agency over employers, given the neoliberal climate of the last 25 years
The article is correct casuals employed on full time hours is a rort and a way to exploit labour.

I do remember, my rememberer may be wrong, that many years ago, being denied casual employment for longer than a few months, as TAX law deemed that after the particular period of time as a "Casual" employee, you had to become a "Full Time or Parmanent" employee, as far as the tax man was concerned.
Is it all comming full circle? Comming back to bite the Employer and/or Gov?

About time. I’ve never been pro union but I’ve seen a trend toward casualisation of the work force. And employment agencies are the scum of the system. They add nothing at all to the economy but take money for nothing. Employees are effectively treated and behave as contractors, with all the drawbacks and instability associated with that, but non of the benefits.

wonder if he needs to repay his casual wage rate loading ... ?

Casuals are paid the extra 17% (or whatever it is) to balance the holiday pay type stuff awarded to permanents

25%

There are 2 sides to these stories. In the fruit and veg industry it was 19% extra.

As an ex employer I resent the fact that an employee can come in and brag about how "off his face" he is from last nights doings, be told to go home after he has cleaned some filters, and not bother to turn a pump back on.
$20K gone in minutes, so I told him he was a liability and to go. Got a phone call from some bitch half an hour later telling me I had to give him three warnings. I enquired politely if that meant he was going to cost me $60K before I could get rid of him and was told "if that's what it takes, yes"

We have always treated employees well, no piece work or anything like that, and most responded well. But when you cannot get rid of rubbish like the above you might as well give up employing anyone.

I have a mate who turns bloodhouse pubs into good family hotels with bistros etc. He has a good system with new employees.

" Yes Susan you have the job as barmaid (barperson?). Before you start just sign these two forms"

"What are they?"

"They are your first two warnings."

I wholeheartedly agree with rockcrawler that employment agencies ie. job pimps are a big part of the problem, these pimps are bottom feeding parasites much like used car salesmen, journalists and real estate agents only out for a dollar with no care in the world who they have to step on or cause pain to along the way. The company I work for only employs casually due to the nature of the work and how the contracts work and every time they advertise a position they always include "no agencies" but that doesn't stop dozens of them calling and some even turning up uninvited trying to push their services much like hawkers of old.

Strictly speaking , casuals are only entitled to one hour notice of termination, due to the fact that they are in fact employed on an hourly basis.
(SA awards, and to my knowledge that has not changed)

“bottom feeding scum, parasites, used car salesmen, journalists, real estate agents” anyone been missed? Politicians? Solicitors? Rock Spiders? Wonder what the collective nouns would be??