This extract from a recent Fair Work Commission decision contains useful dicta about the legal nature of a casual employment relationship.
“Consideration
[1] I have taken into account all of the submissions and evidence that have been provided by the parties. The fact that an issue is not mentioned in this decision does not mean that it has not been taken into account.
[2] It is not in dispute that the Applicant was a casual employee. The Respondent filed a copy of the Applicant’s Contract of Employment dated 14 May 2024, which was signed by the Applicant on 15 May 2024 and contains the following provisions:
“1. NATURE OF EMPLOYMENT
Your employment will be on a casual basis.
By accepting casual employment, you accept that we are offering you no firm advance commitment to ongoing work with an agreed pattern of work…”
[3] I have taken into account Schedule A to the Applicant’s Contract of Employment, which provides:
‘Hours of Work’
“We will offer you work from time to time and in accordance with the operational needs of the business.
We make or give no guarantee as to the number or regularity of hours.
By accepting casual employment, you accept that we are offering you no firm advance commitment to ongoing work with an agreed pattern of work.”
‘Hourly Rate’
“$32.49 (inclusive of 25% casual loading) less tax and excluding superannuation.
As a casual you are paid a 25% loading as compensation for annual leave, personal/carer’s leave, community service leave, notice of termination and redundancy benefits, public holidays not worked and any other entitlements that do not apply to casual employees.
You agree that the 25% casual loading you receive may be set off against any arising statutory benefits that do not apply to a casual employee including (without limitation) annual leave, personal/carer’s leave, community service leave, notice of termination and redundancy benefits, and public holidays not worked.”
[4] In the Full Bench decision of City of Sydney RSL v Mrs Roxana Balgowan,3 the Full Bench adopted, with one modification (not relevant to the present matter), the observations of Gooley DP in Andrew Kim v ORC International Pty Ltd,4 in which the Deputy President Gooley said:
“It is difficult to see how this common law concept of repudiation has any work to do in relation to casual employees. At common law a casual employee’s contract of employment ceases at the end of each engagement. An employer of a casual employee does not repudiate that contract when it fails to offer another shift.”
(My emphasis)
[5] In Moutevelidis v ICC Sydney Pty Ltd,5 Deputy President Roberts also observed that:
“…The Applicant was a casual employee. The Agreement that governed her employment expressly provided that she was employed by the hour with no firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work according to an agreed pattern of work. Her contract of employment said that there was no guarantee of ongoing employment as the Applicant would only be required to work in accordance with the company’s operational requirements. Each engagement was separate and the employment would come to an end at the conclusion of each engagement.”
(My emphasis)
[6] I have taken the above case authorities into account.
[7] The Respondent has continued to offer the Applicant shifts throughout July and August 2025 – which I have assumed is an ongoing practice. The Applicant may argue that the number of hours/shifts per week being offered by the Respondent are less than what he previously worked, but that is simply the nature of casual employment. There are simply no guarantees of minimum hours for any casual employee in any industry in Australia. I have taken this into account.
[8] Further, the ability of the Applicant to work across all sites for the Respondent has been limited by the behaviour of the Applicant. The Respondent cannot direct any client to accept the Applicant as a security guard if he has been removed from the site previously. Also, if the Applicant does not hold the necessary credentials to work at a site, such as a Working With Children Clearance, then the Respondent cannot roster the Applicant to work at that site. I have taken this into account.
Conclusion
[9] There is nothing discriminatory about the Respondent’s actions in not rostering the Applicant to perform shifts for clients where he does not possess the necessary accreditation or for clients where he is not welcome to return. This is not adverse action on behalf of the Respondent, but simply appropriate managerial practices.
[10] The Applicant signed a contract to say that he was a casual employee, and he continues to work as a casual employee. Based on the undisputed common law principle that a casual employee’s employment ceases at the conclusion of each shift, and the provisions of the Applicant’s contract of employment, I am satisfied and find that the Applicant was not dismissed by the Respondent and therefore has no capacity to bring his general protections application involving dismissal application.
[11] The jurisdictional objection by the Respondent is upheld.
[12] The general protections application made by the Applicant is dismissed.
[13] I so Order.”
Yuot v Talice Security Services Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 2611 delivered 1 October 2025 per Riordan C