Casual conversion to permanent employment: what does the Fair Work Commission’s decision really mean?

Services: People & Workplace
Industry Focus: Financial Services, Insurance, Life Sciences & Healthcare, Real Estate & Construction
Date: 13 July 2017
Author: Clare Kerley, Senior Associate and Fay Calderone, Partner
Senior Associate
T +61 2 8233 9625
Partner
T +61 2 8233 9605
M +61 456 780 671
Partner
T +61 2 8233 9617
M +61 417 426 039
Partner
T +61 2 8233 9803
M +61 427 229 971

What you need to know

  • As part of its four year review of modern awards, the Fair Work Commission has decided to insert a ‘casual conversion’ clause into most modern awards that do not already have conversion clauses in place.
  • The proposed clause will enable casual employees to request to convert to full-time or part-time employment, subject to certain rules and restrictions, and employers may be able to refuse such requests on reasonable grounds.
  • The clause does not take immediate effect, but employers should be aware of the decision and consider how they will need to manage casual to permanent conversion requests when the time comes.

When the headlines blared "Casual workers could get permanent roles" last week some employers may have been caught off guard, concerned about their casual workforce suddenly coming forward and demanding permanent employment resulting in access to annual leave, personal leave and the other benefits of permanent employment.

The recent decision of the Fair Work Commission (Commission) may not, however, be as disruptive as it initially seems.

What has the Commission decided?

On 5 July 2017 a five-member Full Bench of the Commission handed down its decision concerning part-time and casual employment as part of its four year review of modern awards. Both unions and employer representative bodies alike submitted a broad range of changes to the awards.

As part of its decision, the Commission will insert a model casual conversion provision into 85 of the 88 modern awards which do not already contain a casual conversion clause. The proposed clause enables casual employees to request to convert to full-time or part-time employment, subject to certain rules and restrictions.

The proposed addition of the clause was in response to submissions from the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), although the decision did not go as far as the ACTU would have liked. The Commission rejected the notion that casual employees should have the right to elect to convert, having, in some awards, been deemed to be full-time or part-time employees after a certain length of time unless they elected to remain employed as casual.

What will the conversion clause look like?

The Commission has drafted the model conversion clause with a qualifying period of 12 months (that is, a casual employee must have worked for a period of 12 months before a conversion request can be made). It also allows employers to reject a request for conversion on ‘reasonable grounds’ which include (but are not limited to):

  • it would require a significant adjustment to the casual employee’s hours of work to accommodate them in full-time or part-time employment under the applicable modern award, or

  • it is known or reasonably foreseeable that the casual employee’s position will cease to exist, or

  • the employee’s hours of work will significantly change or be reduced within the next 12 months.

Where an employer refuses a regular casual employee's request to convert, the employer must provide the employee with the written reasons for the refusal within 21 days of the request being made. Disputes arising from the refusal can be dealt with in accordance with the dispute resolution procedure in the modern award.

The draft model clause also includes a requirement that casual employees are to be provided with a copy of the model clause within the first 12 months of the employee’s engagement with the employer.

What does this mean?

Despite the mainstream press coverage and surrounding excitement, the concept of casual to permanent conversion is not new.

In early 2006, prior to the introduction of WorkChoices, Unions NSW applied for a test case standard in the form of a State Decision. Arising from this was the insertion of a provision in NSW awards that allowed the conversion of regular casuals to permanent status (full-time or part-time) after six months' employment.

While there were similar concerns from employers about a raft of casuals wanting to convert to permanent employment, this did not occur to the extent feared.

What’s next?

The Full Bench is yet to issue determinations in relation to this decision and has invited parties to make further submissions about certain proposals including its draft model conversion clause. It not anticipated the changes will take effect until after August 2017.

Notwithstanding this, employers should be mindful of the Commission’s decision and start thinking about what they will need to do when the final model conversion clause does come into force in a wide range of awards. This should include considering the mechanisms they will need to have in place to properly address each request for conversion, as well as reviewing their ‘on boarding’ procedures to ensure employees receive the correct information required, once the Commission’s decision comes into effect.

For more information, please contact:

Clare Kerley | Senior Associate

T +61 2 8233 9625

E clare.kerley@dibbsbarker.com

Fay Calderone | Partner

T +61 2 8233 9605 | M +61 456 780 671

E fay.calderone@dibbsbarker.com

Leonard Lozina | Partner

T +61 2 8233 9617 | M +61 417 426 039

E leonard.lozina@dibbsbarker.com

Maree Skinner | Partner

T +61 2 8233 9803 | M +61 427 229 971

E maree.skinner@dibbsbarker.com

The information in this document, broadcast or communication is provided for general guidance only. It is not legal advice, and should not be used as a substitute for consultation with professional legal or other advisors. No warranty is given to the correctness of the information contained in this document, broadcast or communication or its suitability for use by you. To the fullest extent permitted by law, no liability is accepted by DibbsBarker for any statement or opinion, or for an error or omission or for any loss or damage suffered as a result of reliance on or use by any person of any material in the document, broadcast or communication.
 
This publication is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, it may only be reproduced for internal business purposes, and may not otherwise be copied, adapted, amended, published, communicated or otherwise made available to third parties, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means, without the prior written consent of DibbsBarker.
 
 
 
Recent Publications
22 Sep 2017
What do investors consider most closely when evaluating an opportunity to invest in an initial public offering (IPO)? Do institutional and retail investors place different weight on different sources of information? How well do retail investors really understand prospectuses?
14 Sep 2017
When shareholders in a company fall out, they sometimes allege that the company’s affairs have been managed in an unfair or oppressive way. Parties to a joint venture gone sour, warring directors, or families mired in disputes over the direction, management, succession and future control of a business are the typical parties to a shareholder dispute, commonly known as an ‘oppression proceeding’.
13 Sep 2017
An Australian business might contemplate litigation against an overseas party for a wide variety of reasons, such as a claim arising from a breach of contract with a foreign-based supplier or manufacturer.