BlandsLaw - Blog posts from Casual Employee
Please select your page
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn

More changes ahead for casual employees

In a decision published on 9 August 2018, the Fair Work Commission has confirmed that the inclusion of a casual conversion clause to 85 modern awards from 1 October 2018 will proceed as planned, despite submission from employers to narrow the application of the clause.

The model casual conversion clause provides that a “regular casual employee”, defined as a casual employee who has:

 

 

  1. been employed for over 12 months; and
  2. working an ongoing pattern of hours,

can request conversion to full-time or part-time employment if this would not require “significant adjustment” to their pattern of hours.

Employers can refuse the request “on reasonable grounds”, and examples of this are set out in the model clause including if the casual position will cease to exist within the following 12 months, or if the hours of work or days and times the work is performed are likely to significantly change or be reduced in the following 12 months.

The FWC received a number of submissions, including seeking removal of the

Read more

A casual approach to casuals could cost you.

We routinely deal with employer issues around casual employment. This is not surprising given the fact that there is no definition of a casual employee in the Fair Work Act, as well as the largely misunderstood notion of who, what and when a casual.  However, a recent decision of the Federal Court has introduced some additional - and costly - hazards into these murky waters.

The case concerns an employee engaged as a truck driver by a labour hire company.

The employee was engaged as a casual and was paid at a rate that included a casual loading paid in lieu of entitlements afforded to permanent employees – notice of termination, leave, etc.

The employee worked for around 4 years under this arrangement.

The employee claimed he was not a casual and was employed on a full time basis.

Despite a number of factors indicating against this, the Court found that the employee was not engaged as a casual, and he was therefore entitled to be paid for leave accrued

Read more

More Articles