Spellbound

Hi All (once again this evening)

Just doing some research on casual employees as this is what husband (painter and decorator) has been offered - job wise in Brisbane.

We are currently going through the Employment Relations Authority here in NZ after taking my husbands previous employer to the tribunal. We are currently waiting for the outcome of this case. His ex employer here in NZ offered a written permanent position as a painter and decorator whilst we were still living in the UK. My husband worked for this guy for 18 months with no holiday pay or correct tax payments and in the end was unfairly dismissed. We have claimed for unfair dismissal, holiday pay and the usual hurt and humiliation payments.

His ex boss is claiming he was a contractor.

The law in NZ and the UK to some extent is similar as follows:

If all or most of these features are present in a work relationship, it is likely to be an employment relationship between employer and employee:

* the intention of the employer and employee is to form an employment relationship, and this is shown in any written agreement or correspondence and/or by the behaviour of the parties to it
* the employer or their agent controls the hours worked
* the employer or their agent has the power to hire and fire
* the employer makes the profit or loss from the enterprise
* the employer deducts ACC premiums and PAYE tax on behalf of the employee
* the employer supplies materials for the work
* the employer owns or leases the equipment needed
* the employee is bound to one employer at a time and is expected not to compete or offer his or her skills to competitors of the employer.

All of these applied to my husband and his employer apart from the ACC and PAYE deductions which we believe he didnt organise because he didnt know how!

Anyway - Our current case has opened our eyes to employment law and practices and wont get caught out again by such a dodgy employer. Without going into too much detail, my husband basically ran this mans business for him under the guise of a 'Foreman' title whilst being paid a low hourly rate and no holiday pay - it was a disgrace!

So onto casual employment - my husband has been offered a position as a foreman painter with a company in Brisbane. He will be paid an hourly rate, expected to work 40 hours a week, will have the use of a ute and petrol paid for and a mobile phone. He will be directed to work, supplied with tools, equipment and paint and his employer mentioned that he has to give a weeks notice but they can fire him at any time. He will have no holiday pay but can get a long term service bonus. One man has been working consistently for nearly five years for this company and others we were told if they went to work elsewhere for more money were not taken back by them as they wanted commitment.

Is this right! This smacks to me of employment but has been hidden (possibly legally) under the guise of casual employment.

Is this common in Australia, particulary within trades? Its a bit worrying.

Debbie

Dorothy

Yes, it's normal. He will be a casual employee of the company, meaning he will be paid a higher wage in lieu of things like vacation, sick leave and other benefits.

Spellbound

I still think its a system that benefits the employer rather than the employee!

moneypenny20

In that respect, it's the same worldwide surely? Companies aren't there to serve the employees. The employees serve the public by way of the company.

sonlymewalter

Until Australia changes it's old fashioned working practices it is always going to have a workforce on the move with poor training, poor productivity and little or no employee / employer loyalty.

Good business practice is to value employee/ employer/ customer relationship and respect the requirements of each.

I think we'll get there in about 30 years

hoofie2002

To be blunt, if he doesn't like it, he doesn't have to take the job - it's a free country and it's his choice.

Spellbound

Hoofie - I think you must have been living in Australia too long as I have found many a 'blunt' person during my visit! You are right in one respect though, that my husband wont be taking this job as it is a free country.
As I have said in my thread, we have already been taken advantage of by one 'suspect' employer and we are not falling into that trap again.

Moneypen - Companies are there to serve the public, I agree, but there is such a thing as minimum workers rights and being protected under Acts of parliament. No one wants to be in the position of being sacked or let go at a moments notice for no particular reason other than they can under a 'casual workers' system.

We are currently in NZ which is also thought to be outdated compared to the UK but I have never come across this 'casual' employment status before. Someone who has worked for a company for five years is not casual in my opinion.

This just shouts to me as a 'sham' arrangement used by employers to avoid paying genuine employees their entitlements and mis-representing an employee/employer arrangement.

Like I said earlier, we have never come across this type of 'casual' employment before, so I was just asking questions about the practice on an active forum on which generally positive posters respond.

I certainly don't come on here for a kicking or a 'if he doesn't like it, he doesn't have to take the job - it's a free country and it's his choice' type of unwarranted reply.

Thanks for any thoughtful replys though!

Rossi

Yes, it stinks,
my wife has until recently been working for 1 of the major supermarkets as a casual worker (also for 5 years) and was told on a weekly basis as to what shifts she gets for the following week - when the kids are off school she will get no work at all ( gotta love child labour eh ?)
Thank goodness she now has managed to get full time employment

Masadal

Agreed ,love it here but the whole casual labour abuse @#$#%% me off.

sonlymewalter

This kind of casual employment was also rife in UK in the 80's. It wasn't uncommon for someone to be employed as casual for years on end. The law was then changed when it was recognised this kind of working relationship was neither beneficial to employer, employee,customers or the economy.

There are too many instabilities created from this kind of temporary labour. Eventually the law changed and there was a minimum timescale that any company could employ someone as casual, after which they had to be employed as permanent and in effect this forced management to better manage their workforce rather than rely on casual employment to fill the gaps in poor planning. There will always be a need for some casual labour however it's not long term method of managing, or at least it shouldn't be.

Aus will eventually change when the effects it has on the economy is felt long term. In the meantime, welcome to low unemployment statistics as a result of massaging the truth

Masadal

Spot on,casuals are often seen as throw away usable comoditties(sp)when their crappy management has done the damage to the balance sheet.
But they expect undying loyalty in return for the scraps of hours they might throw to you.

sonlymewalter

To be honest there's no point in being bitter about it. That's how it is out here so everyone has to learn to live with it and manage it to suit yourself

As for crappy management - I agree it's down to management but then again it's been allowed to happen as management are not doing anything unlawful albeit they are managing by default rather than design.

Hopefully Aus will start holding companies [ergo managers] more accountable - usually this means a change in the law. In turn the economy will reap the rewards of managing business properly i.e manager accountability, improved productivity etc

Aus is a loooong way from this desired result - but it will come eventually

Masadal

Yep you are right, bitterness is a wasted emotion and hopefully the powers that be realise that they need to value and manage employees better if they are to progress as a company.

sonlymewalter

100% spot on and you said it much better than me

hoofie2002

Perhaps you would be better staying in the workers paradise that is New Zealand then ?