EOFY Sale · Save up to $750 off your legals · Ends 30 June

Claim offer
Selected cases

Full Federal Court of Australia · [2018] FCAFC 131

WorkPac v Skene

A Full Federal Court case about casual employment, regular rosters and whether a worker labelled casual was entitled to annual leave.

Full Federal Court of Australia16 Aug 2018

Plain-English explainers, not legal advice. Check the linked official source before you rely on a specific section, and get advice for your situation.

Get legal help

Start here

Quick read

  • Casual labels and casual loadings do not fix a relationship that is stable, predictable and treated like ongoing employment.
  • A Full Federal Court case about casual employment, regular rosters and whether a worker labelled casual was entitled to annual leave.

Use this to check

  • A casual label does not automatically decide casual status.
  • Regular rosters and advance commitments can create entitlement risk.
  • Old casual workforces should be reviewed against the current Fair Work Act rules, not just historic cases.

Decision snapshot

  1. 1

    What happened

    • Mr Skene worked for WorkPac as a fly-in fly-out dump truck operator at a Rio Tinto coal mine.
    • He was labelled and paid as a casual, but he worked under rosters set well in advance, including a seven-days-on, seven-days-off pattern, and the arrangement had the regularity and predictability of ongoing employment.
    • After the engagement ended, he claimed annual leave entitlements under the Fair Work Act and the enterprise agreement.
  2. 2

    What the court had to decide

    • The Full Federal Court had to decide whether Mr Skene was a casual employee for the purposes of the Fair Work Act and the enterprise agreement.
    • The key question was whether the substance of the relationship showed the absence of a firm advance commitment, or whether the regular and predictable work pattern pointed to non-casual employment.
  3. 3

    What the court decided

    • The Full Court held Mr Skene was not a casual employee for the relevant statutory and enterprise agreement entitlements.
    • The decision exposed WorkPac to annual leave liability and became an important stepping stone in the national debate about casual employment and set-off clauses.

Practical impact

Practical read

  • Casual labels and casual loadings do not fix a relationship that is stable, predictable and treated like ongoing employment.
  • Employers should use WorkPac v Skene as the older warning sign, then read it with the current Fair Work Act casual rules.

Useful next steps

  • A casual label does not automatically decide casual status.
  • Regular rosters and advance commitments can create entitlement risk.
  • Old casual workforces should be reviewed against the current Fair Work Act rules, not just historic cases.
  • List casuals with long service, fixed rosters or regular hours.
  • Check whether casual loading is clearly identified in contracts and payslips.

Practical read

Skene is the case that made many employers realise a casual label could be expensive if the roster and relationship told a different story. The worker was not picking up occasional shifts at short notice. He was working regular, pre-set swings in a labour-hire arrangement that looked much closer to a continuing commitment.

The law has moved since Skene, including the High Court's later decision in WorkPac v Rossato and reforms to casual employment. Even so, the business lesson still lands: do not let payroll labels outrun the real working arrangement. If casuals have predictable rosters, long tenure and limited practical choice, the arrangement deserves a proper review.

Checks to run

Key points

  • List casuals with long service, fixed rosters or regular hours.
  • Check whether casual loading is clearly identified in contracts and payslips.
  • Review current employee choice and casual conversion obligations.
  • Do not assume an old casual template still fits current law.

Key takeaways

  • A casual label does not automatically decide casual status.
  • Regular rosters and advance commitments can create entitlement risk.
  • Old casual workforces should be reviewed against the current Fair Work Act rules, not just historic cases.

Related topics

Employment & Workplace

How Sprintlaw can help

Employment ContractContract Review