" Casual " Employees.

A vast number of Australian workers are employed on what is termed a " casual " basis rather than " permanent "  and consequently they do not receive holiday pay or protection from being laid off at short notice.  Many employers prefer this arrangement because it gives them greater hiring flexibility and so we have people doing exactly the same job, year after year in the form of employment that is known as  " permanent casual ".

That is now under threat.   The full Federal Court of Australia this week handed down a ruling that a truck driver employed at a Rio Tinto mine under a labour hire agreement as a casual was not a casual because of his regular and continuous pattern of work.   This is a new ruling because the Fair Work Act does not provide a definition of a casual employee.

This has caused consternation in the Australian Industry Group (AIG) which covers the mining industry because it means the employer would be liable to pay accrued leave on the same basis as a permanent employee when this casual finally terminates his employment.  It will have many employers across Australia having a hard look at how long their casuals have been employed and what repetitive tasks they do that may be interpreted because of this ruling.

This will not put an end to casual jobs.  What it means is that jobs that have all the normal work conditions of permanency will no longer be automatically termed and paid on a " casual " basis if the employee takes it to court for a ruling.  A precedent has been set and each case will be decided on its merit.

Many industries could not operate without a floating group of casuals who can be called in to cover peak demand.  Normally, such employment is intermittent and it may be seasonal.  In the food industry many workers are required to prepare meals and serve them during the lunch rush, but are not required at other times of the day.  Often they have two jobs, working for one employer for the lunch trade, and for another for the evening dining industry.

The AIG is calling for a fixed definition to apply to casual hire.  It wants the Fair Work act to be amended to clarify that an employee engaged as a casual and paid as a casual is a casual for the purpose of the act.  The ACTU has also called for a clearer definition, even as it welcomed the Federal Courts definition.

This employment status between casual and permanent has a decisive influence on quality of life issues.  A permanent employee has a much better chance of getting a housing loan than a casual and this preference affects everything from rental approval to community standing.  The Federal court has fired a shot across the bows of industry to signal that the days of " permanent casuals "  are under review.