WorkPac Pty Ltd v RossatoCitation:[2021] HCA 23Before:Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson JJDate:04 Aug 2021Case Number:B73/2020Read more
The Court held that the first respondent was a casual employee because the employment contracts did not provide a firm advance commitment as to duration or days/hours of work, and the relationship was governed by the written terms rather than post-contractual conduct.
- Parties
- Employee: first respondent; Employer: appellant labour-hire company
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 04 August 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Industrial Law Employment Dispute / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Casual Employment, Employment Contracts, Employee Entitlements
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
first respondent
Employee
appellant labour-hire company
Employer
Procedural Posture
Industrial Law Employment Dispute / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the first respondent was a casual employee under the employment contracts
- 2 Whether there was a firm advance commitment as to duration or days/hours of work
- 3 Whether the first respondent was entitled to non-casual employee benefits
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that the first respondent was a casual employee because the employment contracts did not provide a firm advance commitment as to duration or days/hours of work, and the relationship was governed by the written terms rather than post-contractual conduct.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed
Orders
- The first respondent is declared to have been a casual employee under the relevant contracts.
- The first respondent is not entitled to non-casual employee entitlements.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment