No mere casual affair; regular and systematic work qualifies

In Yakar Holdings Pty Ltd v Giljevic [2006] ACTCA 6, albeit in another jurisdiction, Crispin P and Gray J said:
“The concept of engagement on a systematic basis does not require the worker to be able to foresee or predict when her or her services may be required. It is sufficient that the pattern of engagement occurs as a consequence of an ongoing reliance upon the worker’s services as an incident of the business by which she or she is engaged.”
In Mr Cori Ponce v DJT Staff Management Services Pty Ltd T/A Daly’s Traffic (2012) FWA 5552 Commissioner Roe said:
“It is the employment which must be on a regular and systematic basis… It is clear that to establish “regular and systematic” there must be sufficient evidence that a continuing relationship between the employer and the employee has been established”.
and
“I conclude from this that the set of facts in each case must be examined and that, if the number of hours worked is small and the gaps between days and hours worked is long and irregular this means that there needs to be other evidence that the employment of a casual is regular and systematic. Conversely if there is a clear pattern or a roster for the hours and days worked then this would be strong evidence of regular and systematic employment.”
I conclude that Ms Ramadan was employed for at least the minimum employment period of 6 months. This is because notwithstanding that she was a casual employee, she was regularly and systematically employed with a reasonable expectation of continuing employment on a regular and systematic basis for at least 5 and a half years.
Ramadan v SELC Australia Pty Ltd (2015) FWC 3941 delivered 11 June 2015 per Booth DP