Skene v Workpac Pty Ltd

Skene v Workpac Pty Ltd concerned a dispute between Ms Skene, a labour-hire employee, and Workpac Pty Ltd, the labour-hire company that engaged her. Ms Skene had been engaged by Workpac to perform work for a client, Santos, from July 2010 until May 2012. She claimed that she was a permanent employee of Workpac and therefore entitled to paid leave entitlements under the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth) (FW Act). Workpac contended that Ms Skene was a casual employee and thus not entitled to such leave. The Federal Court of Australia was required to determine the true nature of Ms Skene's employment relationship with Workpac.

The central legal issue before the Federal Court was whether Ms Skene was a casual employee or a permanent employee for the purposes of the FW Act. This determination hinged on an analysis of the terms of her engagement and the reality of the working relationship, particularly in light of the definition of "casual employee" in section 12 of the FW Act, which refers to an employee engaged on the basis that the employer makes no promise or commitment to continue employment indefinitely and the employment is terminated upon completion of the task for which the employee is engaged or at the employer's discretion.

The Court found that despite Workpac characterising Ms Skene as a casual employee, the terms of her engagement and the reality of her employment indicated a permanent employment relationship. The Court noted that Ms Skene had a regular pattern of work, was rostered in advance, and was not given the unfettered right to refuse work. These factors, taken together, demonstrated that Workpac had made an implicit commitment to continue her employment indefinitely, and that her employment was not solely dependent on the completion of a specific task or the employer's discretion. Consequently, the Court held that Ms Skene was not a casual employee and was therefore entitled to the leave entitlements claimed.