Casual Labour?

DO_YOU_KNOW_DAVE

They are getting above minimum wage, but do work shifts. The printing industry.
My point is although they are not guaranteed there hours every week most have had work week in week out for months and theres no sign of a drop in work or slack period that occurs reguarly. Is the company allowed to use people casually like this when in all fairness they are full time floating workers with no set shift patterns but doing full time hours. How long can you work for somebody and still be called casual.
Also if it is shown that the company has enough work to create full time employment does it have to.

Savvy_Sue

There are formulae for working out how much holiday pay you are entitled to if you don't work set hours: it's based on the number of hours you worked over the x weeks before you take the holiday.

ACAS has useful info on that kind of thing, I think you'll find.

telly-addict

DO_YOU_KNOW_DAVE wrote:

They are getting above minimum wage, but do work shifts. The printing industry.
My point is although they are not guaranteed there hours every week most have had work week in week out for months and theres no sign of a drop in work or slack period that occurs reguarly. Is the company allowed to use people casually like this when in all fairness they are full time floating workers with no set shift patterns but doing full time hours. How long can you work for somebody and still be called casual.
Also if it is shown that the company has enough work to create full time employment does it have to.

The company is under no obligation to provide full time employment. If it suits the company to have part time workers then they can. And of course, as long as you don't discriminate on gender (and in N Ireland, religious) lines, you can pay people what you want, above minimum wage. You don't have to pay all employees doing the same job the same wage.

What they can't avoid however is their obligations under the employment legislation.

If there is a definition of casual, which I doubt, then they seem to be stretching it to the limit! I suspect it is one of those things defined by case law over the years and it is not hard and fast. However, as I said before, it would seem difficult now to distinguish between some of these 'casuals' and the full time contracted employees.

Jacster_2

There are basically three categories under employment law:

1. Employee

Includes full time, part time, people on a 'temp' contract with the company (ie not agency)

2. Self-employed

Should be self explanatory, but recent case law has muddied the line a bit

3. Casual

The key thing here is the test of mutuality. To test mutuality answer these questions:

• Does the employer have any obligation to offer work to this person?
• Does the person have any obligation to do the work offered by the employer?
• Specifically, are there any consequences for the person if they turn down work they are offered?

If you can answer No, No, No, then the arrangement broadly passes the mutuality test.

Example - If there is a 'list' of casuals and people who knock back work get put to the bottom, and it takes them weeks to start getting work offers again, then they are in effect being penalised for turning down work. This is the sort of thing that may make an employer 'fail' the test of mutuality.

It's a bit of a legal mine field, and there is an acceptance that this area of employment law needs some attention, so watch this space.

Note - casuals are entitled to protection under Health and Safety and Discrimination laws, eg, Working Time Regs, Sex/Race Discrimination, etc. Min Wage also applies, along with a range of other basics.

HTH

DO_YOU_KNOW_DAVE

The answer to thse three points is no, no and no.
So it is quite legal for the company to continually use casual labour week in week out.
When you say they are entitled "along with a range of other basics" do you mean holiday pay?

Jacster_2

DO_YOU_KNOW_DAVE wrote:

The answer to thse three points is no, no and no.
So it is quite legal for the company to continually use casual labour week in week out.
When you say they are entitled "along with a range of other basics" do you mean holiday pay?

Yes - holidays are part of the Working Time Regs, which comes under Health and Safety legislation, so they are entitled to have holidays and be paid for them on the basis of the average of their earnings over the last 12 weeks worked.

Example - in last 12 calendar weeks, person only offered and did work during 8 of them, so need to go back further to find the last 12 weeks where some work was done (so might be calendar 16 weeks...have I made sense?)

Hope this helps

DO_YOU_KNOW_DAVE

So would they have to had worked for a constant 12 weeks to obtain holiday pay.
If that is so, could they not just offer someone work for one week in twelve.

Phonix

Whenever I speak to anyone who's work for a slightly unconventional agency they always tell me there's alot of illegal immigrants casually working for them.

Jacster_2

DO_YOU_KNOW_DAVE wrote:

So would they have to had worked for a constant 12 weeks to obtain holiday pay.
If that is so, could they not just offer someone work for one week in twelve.

No - they are entitled to 4 weeks paid hols per year under the WTRegs.

To calculate the payment they would be entitled to for that holiday, you have to look back for the average payment over the last 12 weeks.

So, if in the last 12 calendar weeks, the person was only offered and actually did work during 1 of them, you would need to go back further to find the last 12 weeks where some work was actually done. So in actual fact, this might be 24 weeks, or 36 weeks, or anything.

NB - The only reason you do this is to calculate the payment they would be entitled to.

Does this help?

DO_YOU_KNOW_DAVE

Sort of helps.
I just feel it to be so unfair that somebody can work next to me and do the same work but for less pay. Especially when it can be proved that there is enough work for them to have a full time job. I suppose this country will just become a nation of casual workers.