Permanent casuals: A contradiction in terms!

Recent legal decisions are starting to challenge the right of employers to deploy workers in “casual” positions on a long-term basis.

For example, the Federal Court recently ruled that a labour-hire driver who worked regular shifts for years was still entitled to annual leave, even though he was supposedly hired as a “casual.”

This decision has alarmed business lobbyists who reject any limit on their ability to deploy casual labour, while avoiding traditional entitlements and protections (like sick pay, annual leave, severance rights, and more).

For them, a “casual worker” is anyone who they deem to be casual; but that open door obviously violates the intent of Australia’s rules regarding casual loading. Business lobbyists have confirmed that most casual workers work regular schedules – and have even proposed a new category of “perma-flexi” workers, who could be permanently assigned to casual positions.

They are now pressing the Coalition government hard for legislative changes that would cement their right to “permanent casual” hiring – seemingly oblivious to the glaring contradiction of that very idea.

These contradictions are explored further in a commentary originally published on the Ten Daily website.

The Importance of Small Victories

Two other federal bodies have also recently helped to push the envelope on issues of fair work.

First, the Fair Work Commission recently strengthened the right of workers in most parts of the economy to request flexibility in their work schedules, to deal with caring responsibilities at home. The decision arose from an ACTU submission to the four-yearly review of Modern Awards.

Employers now must respond to these requests seriously, and provide written reasons for rejection of such requests; experience from other jurisdictions (such as the U.K.) confirms that this “strong right to request” makes a meaningful difference in workers’ ability to attain a better work-life balance.

The Centre for Future Work contributed to the FWC process with an expert submission marshalling the economic evidence in favour of family-friendly flexibility and scheduling practices.  That submission was prepared with researcher Alison Pennington who has since joined the Centre’s staff full-time as an Economist. See the Centre’s submission here, and the Commission’s full decision here.

Another example of the influence of the Centre’s research is the recent report of parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS, into the “Market Readiness” of the new program.

Among the Committee’s 29 recommendations is one proposing expanded access to funded training opportunities for NDIS workers, mentioning specifically the idea of a portable training entitlement. See Recommendation #11 in the full report, posted here.

The idea of a portable training entitlement system for NDIS workers was developed by our Centre in conjunction with the NSW-ACT branch of the Australian Services Union. It would provide NDIS workers in all workplaces (large agencies, small firms, and even sole contractors) with one hour of paid training for each 50 hours of NDIS-compensated work.  See our full report.

Congratulations to the ASU for their marvelous education and lobbying work promoting this initiative, which would make a very positive contribution to ensuring high-quality jobs, and high-quality service delivery, through the NDIS.

These are just two examples of the ways in which the combination of solid research and determined advocacy can pave the way for incremental but important change in Australia’s labour market.