Home » Casual » Workpac V Skene Casual Employment

Workpac V Skene Casual Employment

WorkPac Pty Ltd v Skene Casual Employee # Found to Be Permanent # Is the Sky Falling In?

Last Thursday (16 August) the Federal Court of Australia handed down a decision that has led some to suggest the nation faces Armageddon in the form of millions of casual employees suddenly being entitled to annual leave and other paid leave benefits.

01/11/2018 To add another layer of complexity, the Full Court of the Federal Court has considered this issue on appeal in WorkPac Pty Ltd v Skene , and found that casual employees will only be those whose employment retains the #essence of casualness#, often identified by:, The WorkPac v Skene case ruled that a long-term casual employee was entitled to back pay of annual leave.

If you#re an employer of long-term casual employees , it#s important for you to be across why this ruling was made and the implications for your business moving forward.

As the Federal Court observed in WorkPac Pty Ltd v Skene [2018] FCAFC 131 ( Skene ), the central question to whether a casual employment relationship exists, is the absence of a “firm advance commitment”, characterised by irregular work patterns, uncertainty, discontinuity, intermittency of work and unpredictability.

18/06/2020 Workpac to appeal casual employment decision to High Court.

On 21 May 2020, we advised that the Full Federal Court had upheld the decision of WorkPac Pty Ltd v Skene [2018] FCAFC 131 ( Skene ) in WorkPac Pty Ltd v Rossato [2020] FCAFC 84 (Rossato).

Click here to view the Legal Alert.

Skene and Rossato have caused serious concerns for employers, as in effect, the Full Court #, In the decision of WorkPac Pty Ltd v Skene [2018] FCAFC 131, the Full Federal Court found that a casual labour hire worker was an employee entitled to annual leave payments under the National Employment Standards (NES) in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Fair Work Act).

28/05/2020 The proceedings which then followed relating to Mr Rossato#s employment involved similar considerations as the recent decision of WorkPac Pty Ltd v Skene [2018] FCAFC 131 ( Skene ), in which it was found that Mr Skene , another employee of WorkPac , was not a casual employee within the meaning of the Fair Work Act or under WorkPac #s enterprise.

Considering the nature of Skene #s position, the Court held that he was not a casual employee.

Not only was WorkPac stung by having to pay Skene his accrued annual leave entitlements (despite already paying Skene a casual rate), the Court also imposed a further civil #, Mr Skene worked for WorkPac as a casual employee from 17 April 2010 to 17 July 2010 and again from 20 July 2010 until his employment was terminated on 24 April 2012.

He was provided with a 12 month roster in advance in January 2011 and January 2012 and worked 7 days on, 7 days off rotating day and night shifts in accordance with that roster.

The Court#s decision in WorkPac v Skene confirms that in considering whether an employee is a casual or permanent for the purposes of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), the approach adopted by the common law prevails.

Essentially, this requires that in order to be considered a casual , an employee must have no firm advance commitment as to.

workpac v skene casual employment