Employment law update: Changes to casual employment
A number of changes in relation to casual employment will be introduced in August of this year under the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Act 2024 (Cth).
The changes are significant and the Fair Work Ombudsman Anna Booth has urged workplaces to ensure they are engaging with the new laws.
”Employers, employees and independent contractors need to understand the changes, which create new or changed responsibilities and rights in a range of areas,” she said.
”This sends a clear message and expectation – employers must invest the time and resources to meet their new legal obligations.”
Some of the changes include a new definition of casual employee and a new pathway for casual conversion.
On 26 August 2024, the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) will introduce a new definition of ‘casual employee’.
The new definition will mean an employee is only casual if:
There are a number of factors to consider as to whether there is a firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work.
Firstly, there will be an assessment of the real substance, practical reality and true nature of the employment relationship.
Then, other factors must be considered. The Fair Work Ombudsman lists examples of other factors as including whether:
Along with a new definition of ‘casual employee’, a new pathway for casual conversion will also be introduced. That is, an eligible employee changing from casual to part time.
This new pathway may be particularly relevant for employees hired as casual prior to the changes beginning on 26 August 2024, as they will remain casual employees despite the changing definition.
If an employee is eligible, they can notify their employer of their intention to change to a permanent employee (i.e., no longer casual). This is done with a written notice.
To be an eligible employee, you must meet the following criteria:
If an employer receives a notification, they must respond in writing within 21 days either accepting or refusing the change.
Before responding in writing, they must consult with the employee, including discussing details of what will change if the employee is changed to a permanent employee.
If the employer accepts the change, the response must include what the new employment status will be, the new hours of work and when the change will take effect.
If the employer rejects the change, the response must include reasons for the refusal.
The Fair Work Ombudsman lists reasons that an employer can refuse a casual conversion as being if any of the following apply:
The Fair Work Commission can hear disputes about casual conversion.
While they will generally try to resolve their alternative dispute resolution methods such as mediation or conciliation in the first instance, they will have the power to arbitrate the dispute. An arbitration can result in a legally binding decision.
In addition to the new definition and pathway, employers will now be required to provide all new casual employees with a copy of the Casual Employment Information Statement (CEIS).
This is a document with information about the definition of a casual employee, when an employer has to offer casual conversion, when a casual employee can request casual conversion and other matters related to casual employment.
The CEIS must be provided to:
A copy of the CEIS can be found here.
This article is a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Argument for expanding contingency fee arrangements beyond class actions to all civil litigation in Victoria, examining the benefits for clients and proper regulatory frameworks needed for implementation.
Critical information about new 28-day time limits for VCAT appeals under the Building Legislation Amendment (Buyer Protection) Act for rectification orders and first resort insurance decisions effective July 2026.
Guidance on maintaining proper boundaries between clients and expert witnesses in building, property and insurance litigation to protect legal privilege, independence and case success.
Comparison of building law duty of care obligations between Victoria and NSW, examining how subsequent homeowners' rights to sue building professionals differ dramatically between Melbourne and Sydney.