Another media article misinterpreting the Skene decision and forgetting to mention employers’ ability to ‘set-off’ liability...

Text:

‘Pressure is mounting on the Coalition to fix legal uncertainty over "double dipping" of casual loadings and entitlements after a major union launched a $12 million class action.

The Construction, Foresty, Maritime, Mining and Energy union case - filed in the Federal Court on Tuesday - brings to seven the number of class actions seeking back pay for workers who claim to have been misclassified as casual.

Business leaders are urging Industrial Relations Minister Christian Porter to draft new laws to ensure employers cannot be forced to pay twice for the same entitlement, fearing the trend could leave them exposed to claims for leave entitlements worth up to $8 billion across the economy.

A sex shop worker last month became the first retail worker to pursue backpay, claiming he was wrongly classified as a casual by the owner of the Pleasure Lounge on Sydney's Oxford St, seeking $41,100 plus superannuation.

The government has been grappling with the issue since the Federal Court last year ruled truck driver Paul Skene, employed at a Rio Tinto mine by labour hire firm WorkPac - the same company being sued by the CFMMEU - was a permanent employee entitled to annual leave and sick pay.

Mr Porter, who is reviewing national workplace laws, said there was "considerable concern" that the Skene decision had created "confusion and complexity" regarding "the potential for double-dipping" by the nation's 2.5 million casual workers.

The minister warned of "considerable and legitimate concern across Australia’s three million or so small and family businesses" and said the government was "closely monitoring" the CFMMEU case.

Australian Industry Group chief executive Innes Willox said it was "blatantly unfair for an employee who has been engaged as a casual and paid as a casual to claim years of backpay for annual leave entitlements".

"Everyone knows that casual loadings are paid in lieu of annual leave,” Mr Willox said.

The employer peak body wants the minister to change the Fair Work Act to give employers the freedom to define any worker as a casual.

The Coalition has intervened in a separate WorkPac test case which seeks to clarify whether employers are entitled to offset any obligation to pay leave and entitlements against casual loadings already paid.

Labor's industrial relations spokesman Tony Burke said the only "double dipping" going on in the CFMMEU case was that performed by the employer.

"They’re taking advantage of the insecurity of casual work while still getting permanent hours out of their workforce," Mr Burke said.

CFMMEU national president Tony Maher said the Skene judgment had "exposed the rort of hiring workers as permanent casuals ... [robbing] workers of their legal entitlements".

Labor had promised to legislate a definition of a casual worker had it won the federal election.’

Maybe this is just because I don't have kids to support on a blue collar wage, but am I the only one who thinks a 25% pay hike on a full time role in exchange for giving up paid leave is a great deal?

Because, as I understand it, these cases virtually hinge upon arguing the worker had regular hours over the long term. So while, yes, there is also insecurity of tenure, they would on the whole be paid way more?