https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/at-work/court-rules-cas…
This is a massive ruling and could have huge impacts on the Australian workforce,
for those too lazy to read it is essentially a ruling saying if you are a long term causal with set shifts weekly your employer could be liable to pay you sick leave, Annual league, compassionate leave etc
My thoughts, good for workers bad for business esp small business
What do people think about this?
so… long term casual leads to permanent part-time?
Essentially but the casuals have been getting casual loading….it potentially is 25% (Casual loading) better to be a long term casual then a part time/full time worker…
That has huge implications esp in the building industry where casual are on BIG money per hour hence why the CMFEU are supporting this ruling
It also mean businesses will need to rotate there casual staff ie keep people on for 6-12 months then find new casuals
Basically increase staff the turn over to protect themselves from potentially expensive leave costs
pretty sure they passed a law that says if you are long term casual you are allowed to ask for PP/T and the biz cant refuse unless they have a legitimate reason
This is the same thing i think
This is a huge deal.. and i see a lengthy and costly appeal being launched soon
The biz lobby wont let this stand
The court ruling appeared to be specific to those working “regular, certain, continuing, constant and predictable” shifts. Each claimant would have to prove that.
That court decision seems logical to me, but employees will not have it both ways. There is a link in the story to a call for the Fair Work Act to be revised to "…prevent double-dipping claims by casuals who have been paid additional remuneration in lieu of the entitlements of permanent employees…".
Swings and roundabouts.
Exactly, the media is quoting the millions of casuals though in reality it will be a much smaller percentage who hit the bar set.
The decision may however help to reduce the casualisation of the workforce.
Best of both worlds, get extra per hour then hold ur employer by the balls down the track
Makes no sense, surely the extra dollars is to cover this
This is terrible.
Casuals knowingly go into Casual work where :
- they get shifts based on whatever the employer needs, there is no set times.
- they get no sick / annual / long service leave.
- they get paid noticeably higher than the full or part timer to compensate for the above.
Now casuals have been getting paid overs and have the same rights as full timers??? How are full timers going to feel about this?
??????????? More like employers. As a full timer I feel for the employer, couldn’t care less for myself as I knew what I agreed to
I don’t like it. The cost of leave will be pushed onto the customers.
Say goodbye to that 25% loading, hope you didn't need the money.
and hello to being Part time and getting the minimum of 8 hours per week.
Companies will just hire as many PT as they need and give them all one shift
Yep, and 8 hours a week is only 2 sick days a year. Great upgrade from that 25% loading. LOL.
so uber is part time now ?
Uber is 'ride sharing', the biggest con a business has pulled on the English language in recent years. Remember when you brought a cake to work to "share" and charged people $5 per slice? Happens all the time…….
It wouldn't be. You work whenever you want.
I do seasonal work, 12h 6 on 2 off for 3-4 months a year. Not exactly casual hours and usually pretty burnt out at the end. Assume this would apply to my case, will it automatically come around or do I need to pursue this with lawyers?
Would your work fit with being "regular, certain, continuing, constant and predictable” shifts?
I disagree with the assertion that this ruling is bad for businesses. Unless you consider "bad" to mean that business are forced to give their employees stability, which frankly any competent businessperson should be doing.
Yes there are concerns about double dipping on leave and 25% loading, but you know what? You then put someone on a contract when they are eligible for that sort of stuff. This ruling shows clearly to employers that they need to be providing stability to employees. Anyone who says that this is bad for business has literally not thought about it for more than 2 seconds.
I suspect an appeal with the High Court, which is the last-stop-shop. Will be following this case with keen interest.
So casuals get a higher pay rate because they don't get holidays etc, but now they get holidays and a higher pay rate?
The case seems much more niche than meets the eye / meets the media (as usual). As GG57 says, some element of continuity, constancy, predictability and regularity is required in the claimant's shifts. Further, doing a bit of further reading, it appears one of the reasons the claimant was successful was because his employment contract did not explicitly state the payment of casual loading was in lieu of, and to explicitly address, entitlements forgone such as paid leave. WorkPac failed to provide evidence of this, and maybe this plays a part. TLDR if you've got a casual contract that literally states 'you are entitled to casual loading of 1.23x, which is paid to cover things you are not entitled to such as paid leave, sick leave' then you might not be as successful
Bad for business and consumers .Things will get more expensive. There is no way we can afford to buy things made in Australia, then much we WISH to.
Casual workers deserve a break!
The 25% loading disappears to almost nothing of overtime is worked. How do most people not know this? They are fortunate to have a permanent position
So sick of employers wanting everything their own way and society just accepting that this is the norm
Don't do overtime?
or ask to get paid for the overtime.
People in permanent positions also work overtime…
In fact, if you're paid a salary you're unlikely to get paid for your overtime (?normally time in lieu), whereas if you're paid an hourly casual rate you're more likely to be able to argue to get paid… Or just walk off the job on the spot if it's declined.
In hospitality, my casuals get paid for every minute they work. My salaries on the other hand……..45 hours minimum for duty managers, no overtime. And before anyone says we should ask for it to be paid, the government does consider that 'fair' overtime.
It's a fair result but the Liberal Party will NEVER let it stand.
This ruling goes against their core ideological belief of supporting business (capital) over workers (labour). They will pull every lever at their disposal to ensure this doesn't stick around. The LNP are still mightly pissed-off WorkChoices was overturned.
A core mission of the LNP is radical labour market reform and this unfortunately will bring forward their timetable for a major overhaul designed to greatly favor business over workers. Expect to hear many arguments linking COVID-19 to this issue and the 'need' to support business at the expense of workers.
Bottomline, expect a new law that will sidestep the court's ruling. Don't think for a second they have your best interests at heart.
It is a legal judgement.
It can be appealed.
The federal government can try to legislate around it, but need to get that passed in parliament.
good for workers bad for business