Adecco in Australia has declared the government’s proposed casual employment changes have opened a ‘Pandora’s box’ for employers that will impose a ‘massive compliance burden’ on the company’s operations across Australia, reports The Australian (paywall). Nicholas Lee, senior vice president and country manager for Adecco Australia & New Zealand likened the Closing Loopholes Bill to the government fishing for one type of fish but casting a massive net ‘where you are just going to catch everything and maybe things you didn’t even want, or didn’t intend to catch’.

Earlier this year, the country’s Labour government announced that, as part of its next set of workplace reforms, it will ensure that eligible casual workers who want to become permanent workers can do so. As part of the reforms, the government said it would legislate a fair, objective definition to determine when an employee can be classified as casual.

“The point around the casual changes is more about almost sifting through associate by associate by associate to make sure that the way the casual is classified is in line with the new wording of the legislation,” Lee told The Australian. “There’s going to need to be a micromanagement of our entire workforce in Australia which numbers in the tens of thousands, so it’s going to put a massive compliance burden on us now to go through that.”

Lee said Adecco had thousands of workers on casual contracts daily, adding, “There are two elements to the fundamental question: is there a regular pattern of work and is there a longer -term relationship?

“It may be that we have a person on Adecco’s books but we have put them to work at one company for a month then we put them to work at another company for a month then we put them to another company for a month but they are working for Adecco over a longer period of time. Potentially, someone might come and say that person is not a casual person. They are permanent so you need to now hire them as a permanent employee,” Lee said. According to Lee, Adecco would have to apply a ‘filter or lens’ to assess whether a worker on its books working across multiple accounts could argue there was a regular pattern of work.

Businesses have also attacked the plan to allow casual workers to seek permanency after just six months in a job, claiming the changes will cause legal uncertainty and restrict employers’ ability to engage casuals to work regular and predictable hours.

Meanwhile, University of Adelaide law professor Andrew Stewart said there was some uncertainty for employers in dealing with the new provisions but denied they were likely to face a significant compliance burden “If the complaint is about we don’t know what the status of a casual worker might be if they start off casual and gradually settle into a regular pattern of work, the bill is really clear what happens in that situation, which is they stay a casual until either they choose to challenge their status or the employer offers them permanency,” Stewart said. “The big change is really only for firms who are treating and paying people as casuals when there is nothing the slightest casual about their employment from the outset, when it’s a regular, stable, ongoing job.”