Periods of service as a casual employee

See Fair Work Act 2009 s.384(2)

Periods of service as a casual employee do not count towards the minimum employment period unless both of the following conditions are satisfied:

• the employee was a regular casual employee, and
• the employee had a reasonable expectation of ongoing employment on a regular and systematic basis.[1]

See Fair Work Act s.15A

A person is a casual employee if they are employed as a result of accepting an employment offer on the basis that the employer makes no firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work according to an agreed pattern of work for the person.

A regular pattern of hours does not mean that there is a firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work. To determine whether there is no firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work, only the following factors are relevant:

• whether the employer can elect to offer work and whether the person can elect to accept or reject work
• whether the person will work only as required
• whether the employment is described as casual employment, and
• whether the person will be entitled to a casual loading or a specific rate of pay for casual employees under the terms of the offer or a fair work instrument such as a modern award or enterprise agreement.

The above factors are assessed on the basis of the offer of employment, not on subsequent conduct by the employer or employee.

See Fair Work Act s.12

An employee is a regular casual employee at a particular time if, at that time, the employee is a casual employee, and the employee has been employed on a regular and systematic basis.

The Fair Work Act does not define employment on a ‘regular and systematic basis’. 

It is the employment that must be on a regular and systematic basis, not the hours worked.[2] However, a clear pattern or roster of hours is strong evidence of regular and systematic employment.[3]

The term 'regular' implies a repetitive pattern and does not mean frequent, often, uniform or constant.[4]

The term 'systematic' requires that the engagement be 'something that could fairly be called a system, method or plan'.[5]

Where there is no clear pattern or roster, evidence of regular and systematic employment can be established where:

• the employer offered suitable work when it was available at times that the employee had generally made themselves available, and
• work was offered and accepted regularly enough that it could no longer be regarded as occasional or irregular.[6]

The Fair Work Act does not define the term 'reasonable expectation of continuing employment', this will depend on the particular circumstances.

One test that has been applied is 'whether or not during a period of at least six months prior to the dismissal ... the employee had ... a reasonable expectation of continuing employment on a regular and systematic basis'.[7]

Reasonable expectation of continuing employment

Prior resignation strong indicator of a reasonable expectation

Tilbrook v Willall Industries Pty Ltd [2011] FWA 6300 (Hampton C, 5 October 2011).

A casual was employed over a total period of 32 months, which included an 11 week period in which the casual did not make himself available for work. It was held that the 11 week period interrupted or concluded continuous service. However, the casual employment since that period, although there were some weeks in which no work was performed, was held to be regular and systematic and gave rise to a reasonable expectation of continuing employment. This was sufficient to meet the statutory requirement for continuous service.

NO reasonable expectation of continuing employment

Infrequent engagements

Harrison v Imperial Management Queensland Pty Ltd T/A Pacific Red Produce [2011] FWA 8099 (Richards SDP, 30 November 2011).

Because the frequency of engagement of the applicant employee was erratic, with the ultimate engagement being 7 months after the penultimate engagement, the applicant could not have had a reasonable expectation of continuing employment.

Employer made casual arrangement clear

Leslie Holland v UGL Resources Pty Ltd T.A UGL Resources [2012] FWA 3453 (McCarthy SDP, 23 April 2012).

The applicant employee was engaged for discrete periods of differing duration not forming any pattern, and there were extensive absences between each period of employment. The employer made it clear on each engagement that there should be no expectation of continuing employment. It was held that applicant should not have had a reasonable expectation of continuing employment.

Shortland v Smiths Snackfood Co Ltd[8] explained the following principles:

• Each occasion a casual employee is engaged is a separate contract of employment.[9] These contracts may be week to week, shift to shift, hour to hour or for any other agreed short period.[10] In this sense no casual employee has a continuous period of employment beyond any single engagement.[11]
• For the purpose of unfair dismissal it is the period of service rather than the period of employment that is relevant.[12] If the conditions of s.384(2)(a) are satisfied, then a period of service by a casual employee will count towards the period of continuous service.[13]
• Once continuous service is established, the employer or employee may only break continuous service by making it clear to the other party that there will be no further engagements.[14]
• For casual employees it is possible that some periods of service will meet the conditions of s.384(2)(a) and others will not.[15]
• Absence for illness or injury does not break a period of continuous service.[16]

If:

• the employee is a transferring employee in relation to a transfer of business from an old employer to a new employer, and
• the old employer and the new employer are not associated entities when the employee becomes employed by the new employer, and
• the new employer informed the employee in writing before the new employment started that a period of service with the old employer would not be recognised;

the period of service with the old employer does not count towards the employee’s period of employment with the new employer.[17]

Where there is a transfer of business the employer is obliged to make it clear to the transferring employee whether service with the old employer will be recognised. This is important for two reasons. One, the employee will know that he or she will not be protected from unfair dismissal for the qualifying period and secondly, it will assist the employee to determine if he or she refuses the job offer whether he or she is entitled to redundancy pay under s.122(3). For these reasons the written advice to employees should be clear.[18]

Transferring employee

Transferring work

Taulapapa v Toll Personnel Pty Limited [2018] FWC 6242 (Cambridge C, 16 October 2018).

The Commission found that the minimum employment period was satisfied for the applicant in this matter because there was a connection between his old employer (Staff Australia) and his new employer (Toll Personnel).

The connection was established as a result of the transferring work the applicant performed for the old employer (Staff Australia) being outsourced by an associated entity of the new employer (Toll Transport).

As a result the transferring work of the applicant was performed by him as an employee of the new employer (Toll Personnel).