High Court Ruling on 'Casual' Workers

The High Court’s decision on the WorkPac v Rossato appeal has just been handed down. The decision clarifies this area of Employment Law and has broad implications for all businesses. Importantly, it overturns the earlier decision made by the High Court. 

(Read our article about the Full Federal Court’s earlier decision here) 

‘Casual’ workers 

To ascertain if an employee is ‘casual’, the High Court indicated there should be ‘no firm advance commitment’ from employers regarding the duration of employment or the days (or hours) the employee is to work and no reciprocal commitment from employees to their employer. 

However, diverging from the earlier decision, emphasis was also placed on the terms of the employment contract. In particular, the requisite firm advance commitment should be evident in the contractual obligations between employer and employee. Unlike in the earlier case, a mere expectation of continued regular employment is insufficient to meet the definition of ‘casual’ employment.  

Mr. Rossato was deemed to be a casual worker (as opposed to a wrongly classified permanent worker per the earlier Full Federal Court decision) and therefore the finding on set-offs and “double dipping” was also rendered irrelevant.  

What does this mean? 

The decision is consistent with recently passed federal legislation whereby the contract of employment is central to assessments of if an employee is ‘casual’ or not.