WorkPac Pty Ltd v Rossato & Ors

The Full Federal Court of Australia considered an appeal by WorkPac Pty Ltd against a decision concerning the employment status of Mr. Rossato and other individuals engaged by WorkPac as casual employees. The central dispute revolved around whether these employees were, in fact, entitled to entitlements such as annual leave, personal/carer's leave, and redundancy pay, which are typically afforded to permanent employees, despite being engaged on a casual basis. The appeal was heard by Bell and Nettle JJ.

The primary legal issues before the Full Federal Court were whether the employment contracts, which characterised the engagements as casual, were determinative of the employees' status, or if the reality of the employment relationship, as evidenced by the nature of the work and the terms of engagement, dictated a different classification. Specifically, the court had to determine if the employees were entitled to accrued leave entitlements under the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth) and whether WorkPac was entitled to offset any such entitlements against the casual loading paid to the employees.

The Full Federal Court reasoned that the characterisation of an employment relationship as casual is not solely determined by the label given in the contract. Instead, the court must look to the substance of the relationship, considering factors such as the regularity and predictability of work, the employee's ability to refuse work, and the employer's right to control the manner of work. In this instance, the court found that the evidence demonstrated a pattern of regular and predictable work for the employees, which was inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of casual employment. Consequently, the court held that the employees were not casual employees and were therefore entitled to the leave entitlements of permanent employees. The court also addressed the issue of offsets, finding that WorkPac was not entitled to offset the casual loading against the accrued leave entitlements.