AMWU v Donau Pty Ltd [2016] FWCFB 3075 Service as a casual counts for payment in lieu of notice at [19-20] when using NES Unilever Australia Trading Limited v AMWU [2018] FWCFB 4463 EA overides NES and service as casual is NOT counted.
The Fair Work Act does not contain a definition of what is meant by the expression “casual employee” but the distinction between a casual employee on the one hand and a permanent part time or permanent full time employee can be very important. For example, casual employees do not have access to the unfair dismissal […]
In Ponce v DJT Staff Management Services Pty Ltd trading as Daly’s Traffic (2010) FWA 2078 Commissioner Roe of Fair Work Australia (as it was then known) set out some of the principles to be applied in determining under s.384 of the Fair Work Act whether casual employment is on a regular and systematic basis, […]
Sokolovic v Modestie Fashion Australia Pty Ltd (2011) FWA 3063 contains a thorough analysis of the circumstances in which the Fair Work Commission (then Fair Work Australia) will factor the regular and systemic employment of an employee otherwise regarded by the employer as a casual employee in determining whether the employee qualifies under s.382 and […]
All too often, I am advised that a person has no rights to make a claim for an unfair dismissal remedy because they are a casual employee. This is a nonsense of course, because that is not the effect of the Fair Work Act. Similarly, many people think that if a business has fewer than […]
In Ponce v DJT Staff Management Services Pty Ltd T/A Daly’s Traffic Roe C observed (2010)FWA 2078“It is the employment which must be on a regular and systematic basis. This does not mean that the hours or days of work must be regular and systematic. Although the previous legislation referred to the period or periods […]
Casual employees are not entitled to many of the protections of the Fair Work system in Australia, including protection from unfair dismissal. However, they may be if they have been employed long enough and their employment was “on a regular and systemic basis” (s.384 Fair Work Act 2009)There is no definition of ‘regular and systematic’ […]
These are the leading statements about the principles which apply to determining whether breaks in service break continuity of service for casual employees in particular or not.Ponce v DJT Staff Management Services Pty Ltd T/A Daly’s Traffic (2010) FWA 2078 in which, the Commission discussed the situation where there is not a clear pattern or […]
As to whether or not it was systematic, it has been held that a definition would include something that could fairly be called a system, method or plan;Yaraka Holdings Pty Ltd v Giljevic (2006) 149 IR 399.”From the submissions it is clear that (the employee) specialised and performed specialised work on a regular basis. Such […]
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 […]
Recent Comments