Q: We are looking for guidance around what constitutes a ‘regular’ work pattern. If people were employed as casuals and offered work every week for 12 or more weeks, although not the same number of hours every week, would they really be classified as casual? There would be no obligation for them to work but they could potentially be working every week if they accept shifts that are offered. Their employment agreement would identify them as being employed on a casual basis.

A: not a casual, would be better to put them on a fix term.  In rough terms anything pattern of more than 4 weeks on continuous employment needs to be looked at on if they are more than a casual.  A true casual is: as and when required, no pattern of continuous employment (does not matter they work different days or different hours but they worked every week), no expectation to work)Q: How do we determine ‘regular’ – does it become regular after, for example, 2 weeks of working every week or does it become regular after 10 weeks working every week?

A: 4 is a good gauge (commonly known in payroll as the 4 week rule), or roster, or what was agreed.

Q:  I found this mention on the website of a NZ payroll company: “A casual worker can also be working for fixed hours for a short-term contract. This contract must be for less than one year to fall into the criteria of “casual”.” Is this correct – could they work regular hours every day/week but as long as they are working on a project/contract that runs for less than 1 year they could still be considered casual?

A: RUBBISH!  There are casuals and then there are fix term employees (under section 66 of the Employment Relations Act.  You can pay 8% pay as you go to a fix term less than 12 months under Section 28 of the Holidays Act.  Should not be mixing the two as they have stated.