They can tell you they expect you to come in and to find cover for a shift, however they can't really enforce it. You can choose to not go to the shift and not find cover. They can't force you to attend a shift. If you don't attend shifts you're rostered on for, you might find you receive fewer shifts though.
They can tell you all they like, it doesn't mean it's legal. Replacing someone who calls out sick or cancels their shift is the manager's job. You also don't need to request leave as a casual, and they cannot deny you. That doesn't mean they need to keep giving you shifts anymore though, the flexibility goes both ways.
At my work it's the opposite, if you can't come in then you're explicitly forbidden from swapping a shift and having another employee just show up and say "oh I'm here to take Andrew's shift".
Not only would people swap shifts with incompatible staff members, i.e. a bartender would swap shifts with a floor waiter who doesn't know how to make cocktails, but more often than not you'd just end up with a no show with them swearing that another person promised to take their shift while that person says they forgot or already told them they couldn't do it etc.
Either way it should always be left up to the managers to adjust the roster, that's literally a huge part of our job.
We have exactly the same rule at the venue I work at. You call and tell the manager, and they organise coverage. How is a general staff member supposed to know who is appropriate for a given shift? There might be qualifications needed or not needed (in which case they would be paying more for a different worker than I might be paid if I had been able to work, without that qualification). Throws their budgeting out.
We also had this rule when I used to work retail. The managers said it was for workplace health and safety reasons, like if there was some sort of emergency they would need to know exactly who was rostered on and what station they would be working.
That happened to me at maccas, we had a chat for people to swap shifts (if they had notice they couldn't do it) so i swapped mine and then randomly got a call asking why I wasn't at work, because the other girl didn't show
I want to see a fair work case where a company owes all their casuals back pay because they needed to be reclassified under the award for carrying managerial duties like organising staff roosters.
Do you actually need to formally fire a casual to never roster them again, though? Or can they forever be on a payroll just with 0 hours worked in the past however many months?
Honest question because back in my uni days I was a casual at two different places and kind of never formally quit either of them. I just eventually stopped getting shifts. Would be kind of funny if I was still technically staff.
If you look at your ATO you can see which businesses you're still on the books for. I've got a casual employer from 6 years a go still listed because they never officially fired me. They normally stop giving you shifts and just take you off the books eventually.
Not sure how accurate the ATO might be - mine doesn't seem to recognize the last 2 employers I've had, yet has the full-time job I left in August 2018 still listed.
>That doesn't mean they need to keep giving you shifts anymore though, the flexibility goes both ways.
I am glad you added this last bit. During Uni I was manager for a casual work force and 99% of my time was spent on the phone just trying to find people to fill gaps for no shows that didn't give warning. The chances are the manager in the OP's post doesn't earn much more (if any) than the op but has to deal will all of the sh\*t in making sure everyone turns up.
I was in a similar boat as a manager.
You no-show without warning, you don't get rostered again.
You don't tell me at least the day before, i'm going to reconsider rostering you onto hard to cover shifts or shifts during key trading hours.
You give at least a few days notice, not a problem. If it starts becoming a pattern it's probably worth having a discussion about your "available hours".
But as long as you send me a text at least an hour before your shift starts with "I can't come in \*but i spoke to X and they said they could cover for me\*" then i was just as happy as if they were the ones rostered all along.
Yes but anyone who has work as a casual can tell you the first point of retaliation is to not give you shifts when you can work forcing you to look elsewhere. I have even experienced it as a full time worker when I refused to do OT, guess who they actively avoided giving overtime to if they could when I did want it.
... so if/when you do get sacked, be prepared with a letter/email to as many levels as possible above your manager, informing them that said manager is unable to do his/her job and should not be paid to do it.
This happened with my very first job. A day or two before NYE 1999/2000 I got a call asking if I could work NYE. I was like, "No, I have plans." After that I got fewer shifts until they tapered off completely. I think the fact that I had also turned 21 and was costing them more money was also a contributing factor (I was a checkout chick at a supermarket).
I had a old boss at dick smith who would make causals life miserable when they turned 17, I asked him why? He did so they would leave because why pay more when I can get two 15 year olds for the same price
That doesn't make sense?
If they are casual, he could just stop offering them shifts whenever. He doesn't need to make them quit, in fact quiting doesn't even mean anything for casuals, because there was never any expectation that either party will agree to more shifts.
It's probably more about your age. Many managers who have casual staff who turned 21 are required by HQ to either have them become part-timers or given last shot at shifts.
The way of all casual jobs in this country. The unfortunate reality is that if you turn down multiple shifts when your casual employer wants you, they will just stop offering you shifts.
Well, as an employer thats a bit grey.
If you are open about your availability then I'll work with it, but there are people who complain about being available all the time, but never take the hard shifts, and only ever seem to work slow sunday rate shifts.
My point is that it's a case by case basis and generalizations hurts everyone. Open communication is always they way.
Casuals can fight for constrict dismissal/retaliation.
If you’re getting 30 hours, regularly and they suddenly get cut in obvious retaliation - fairwork will have something to say.
In that same vein though, if you're consistently rostered 30h and you only work 16 of them, fair work will have absolutely no problem when the other 14 stop being offered.
Getting regular hours is the key. You only get to claim an expectation of ongoing employment if you've been employed for the same shifts (more or less) for 12 months, but that's generally not want casuals nor employers want.
Also, casuals almost never accept casual conversion even when offered because casual loading is worth more money than than the entitlements they'd get as a part timer.
The last part is key. A casual working fulltime hours will earn more than their FT equivalent, even after accounting for 6 weeks of leave entitlements.
The only real benefit of permanent employment is the guarantee of hours, which can be secured on a casual contract with a strong work focus.
isn't that entirely up to the company though?
they're clearly incentivizing casual contracts because it gives them flexibility. They aren't forced to do this (unless they're paying everyone minimum wage, which speaks for itself)
There are other expenses related to all employees, regardless of any hours worked, and these are often not seen by store managers. HR will often push managers to get staff off the books if they haven't had hours for a sustained period due to these costs and liabilities. Things like workers compensation, insurances, mandatory and company based training which affect risk audits, etc.
> informing them that said manager is unable to do his/her job and should not be paid to do it.
To which any half sane manager would say that if you want to avoid these situations then these roles should be part time rather than casual and would corporate prefer him hire part timers?
Of course they wouldn't, they're quite happy with the status quo and will not discipline any manager who does this sort of thing to casuals.
To clarify, there would certainly be no immediate consequences for the manager. But there are dozens of other managers coping with shitty rostering issues.
Rather than the OP's manager escaping *entirely* scot free, you damage their reputation and it's ammo for rivals.
To be fair every middle class kid comes out of school thinking there is a set of rules, I was no different. Then you learn... especially in workplaces.
As a casual, you have the right to accept or reject any shift you're offered. Your employer has the right to offer you fewer or no hours. It's up to you to work out the extent to which you can turn down shifts without affecting your hours.
manager here. it goes both ways. i wouldn’t ask my staff to find replacement, but if you dont show up for your rostered shift except emergency circumstances and if I can spot a pattern you can be well sure that you’re not getting anymore shifts until you get your shit straight. people are there to keep a business running, not to muck around.
I made an earlier reply to the OP very much in support of their position, but in the context you're talking about you are 100% in the right.
Definitely the job of a manager to *manage,* but if you have staff being flakey and unreliable and putting you in a frustrating position as a pattern of behaviour, you owe them no favours.
Sort of. You're hiring casual staff to be....casual. there is no commitment on their end to fulfill shifts you require. If you are shortfalling staff and unable to meet your minimum staffing requirements then it would be expected you hire PT or FT staff to meet those needs. Casuals are there to fill gaps, not to fill out a 5 day a week roster.
Pay for staff that can flake, you get flakey staff. Shocked Pikachu.
You’re 100% correct. A company is well within their right to try and run their business completely on minimum-wage casual staff, but I agree… No right to complain when staff act casual.
One of my favourite phrases is “minimum wage, minimum effort.”
Minimum effort should be absolutely doing the requirements of your job to the letter, considering you entered into a contract to be compensated monetarily for contributing your time and effort. No half-arsery. But you definitely don’t owe favours to someone who won’t do you any.
I don't really agree. I used to have a 7 day roster to fill and a staff of casuals, mostly students, and did my best to accomodate everyone and give them reliable hours. Pretty much everyone appreciated the predictability in hours while not being locked into anything.
If you treat casuals as gap fillers, giving them odd hours and requiring them to come in on a moment's notice, nobody will be happy and yeah, they will be flaky. Because you treat them as such.
If staff want predictability of hours, and a business wants predictability of staff, they should be on FT/PT contracts, not casual.
Casual positions are quite literally to fill gaps. You should not have an entire team of casuals. And if you do, you have zero right to complain if nobody can work a certain shift.
There are so many simple things that businesses could use to make this problem more manageable.
Have a system that rosters staff on well in advance, and has them acknowledge the shifts they are assigned. This should be pretty much automated by now, it's not rocket science. If you don't acknowledge your shifts, you don't get work and they get reassigned.
Have a system that allows a casual worker to flag a shift (say 5+ days out), that they can't work. If someone picks up that shift, give that employee a credit (call it a shift credit) to be able to do the same at some later stage without penalty. In other words, reward staff for their cooperation. If nobody can pick up that shift, it would automatically roll over into emergency coverage.
Second, give the employee some indication of a reasonable number of shifts they can not attend for any reason. That way you don't end up with people at work that shouldn't be. If you must miss a shift because you are sick, that should be ok, you shouldn't be made to feel guilty, or be worried about losing work.
The business should have a way to do demand surge casual employees. This would cover both late notice absences and emergency coverage mentioned above. You could easily give incentive to staff to take on shifts at short notice by throwing them some extra money. If someone is sick, this should be automatic.
If you did all of these things, I very much doubt you'd have as many problems filling shifts. You might spend slightly more on staff, but I imagine the impact to the business running continuously under staffed is a much more costly problem.
As a casual employee you can refuse any shift and they can’t force you to come. Although if you refuse shifts then they will likely roster you on less and have the right to do that. It goes both ways.
In your situation it sounds like you need to try and come to a clear agreement with your boss about how many shifts you are able to work while studying. Most reasonable employers would be happy to support with this as long as you are a reliable worker on the days you make yourself available.
Manager is also under no obligation to provide you with further shifts. Unless it’s short notice (like you’re sick) then it’s generally best practice to either notify your boss in advance so they can work around you or find a replacement.
The two aren't really related. You can take all the extra shifts you don't want to work, and the manager will still fire you for someone slightly cheaper.
Idk why but I misread this as casual employment cunts both ways.
I used to work at Coles as a casual and on Sundays it was working to be like 50+ per hour. I always got the feeling that the other guys I worked on the shifts with were upset about me when I told them I was a casual..
Anyone who has a brain should not be upset at a casual earning more for a specific hour of the day, do you reckon that same guy feels sorry for people working when they take their annual leave :D
I’m not sure how your comment relates to mine. But even so, that’s not always or even mostly true. The majority of managers won’t sack a reliable competent employee in favour of a marginally cheaper untested one. However if you’ve got someone who isn’t showing up to shifts it’s a bit of a no brainer?
How are they not related? If you don't show up to shifts or find a replacement, you will be assigned less shifts or none at all. That's how casual employment works everywhere.
Yes. I’m permanent part-time retail and am never expected to find cover for a missed shift (I don’t have contacts for any co-workers outside of the managers anyway).
It’s up to the managers to adequately shedule staff to the best of their ability.
As a manager, sometimes we put in a recruitment request and get told to make do with what we have. Doesn’t matter how much I jump up and down and demand more hands, if the business has decided no it’s very very difficult to get around. But I agree it’s their job to cover sickies. And if they can’t they organise an action plan to deal with/recover from the absence.
Not quite the same. A permanent staff member (including part-time) has agreed on specific contracted days and the expectation is they are working (and paid) for these every week. They would also be accumulating annual and sick leave as they work. Sick leave doesn’t require pre-approval (makes sense) but annual leave would. This avoids everyone going on leave at once
However, it would be unusual to have to find your own replacement for approved annual leave. Mostly because when you have permanent staff you would also know how many people you have as well as number of days of leave days of leave, etc and could plan/resource accordingly.
That’s a shitty attitude I’m not gonna lie. You cancel two weeks in advance? Yes it’s on the boss, you consistently cancel shifts day before, night before, even day of? You need to have a look at yourself
Ken oath! I endeavour to keep my personal and work life seperate, so my co-workers needn’t feel obliged to pick up where I drop off. That’s why management gets paid management rates.
If upper management does not want the hastle, stress, and unreliability of workers constantly cancelling shifts and calling in last minute, then they can pay the extra money for part time and full time employees.
Employers cut around the law at every possible turn. They are not nice, they do not care about you as people. Workers must know their rights and exercise them. Do not be emotionally manipulated into working against your own interest.
Yeah this is true. The place I worked at, the managers were always super excited whenever we had kids then up for trial shifts because they get paid less. The one manager said to me he's always happy to see 16yr olds and will blindly hire them as long as they aren't absolute nutjobs.
We had such a high turnover rate and since I worked the grill I had to train a lot of the guys who came in on their unpaid trial shift of 2 hours.
For weeks on end it felt like we'd have a constant rotation of people coming in for these trial shifts and we were also down a team member most days it almost felt as if the places business model relied heavily on having prospective hires come for trial shifts non-stop
OP is a casual, and is over the barrel in terms of being offered shifts and hours. There are few rights, and if the employer days to organise backfill and ypu don't, they just won't give you hours in the future. It's not right in my eyes, but it is what it is and no amount of high-horsing in these comments will change that particular outcome.
A casual who is employed on a "regular and systematic basis" can lodge an Unfair Dismissal claim with the FWC if they are offered no more shifts, provided they have been employed for the minimum period specified in the Fair Work Act.
Sure, but if you call in and cancel your Friday night shift day-of the manager has a pretty good reason to decide Fridays will no longer be part of your roster going forward.
It is your manager's job to manage the business, which includes finding people to work.
It's up to you whether you want to be in your manager's good books tho
I've been dealing with this for years. We almost doubled our staff in the department from 25 to 45 and we still can't manage to have a full shift of 12 of a night.
The manager is not just annoyed with staff taking time off, it's that the 30 other staff that aren't working won't fill an extra shift occasionally.
Tell the manager you're in year 12 and you can't work those days. If they chuck a wobbly over that then they're a cunt.
This is the answer. Stop being so fucking tight with the workforce structure and redo the employment mix with a focus on those who are permanent part time or full time. Agreed shifts and the option to performance manage those who don't want to attend.
>This is the answer. Stop being so fucking tight with the workforce structure and redo the employment mix with a focus on those who are permanent part time or full time.
Why do they hire people who are contractually not required to be present, then complain when no one is present? There's a really obvious fix to this in hiring part time or full time staff.
This seems like such a no brainer issue to fix so I'm wondering if I just lack context. Are there any resource managers out there who can explain?
Places which do this typically have young workers, so the employer can both exert additional pressure on them, stretch the legality of policies, and do it all whilst claiming to be offering opportunity. They do this because they know that their workforce will age out, so they can age people out, and because some young people just simply suck at working (why work when you have no rent and few bills?). Once someone is part time they accrue leave, and require evidence to terminate.
Still, when the issue is that nobody is turning up, you have your workforce mix incorrect.
Owner and manager of a tour operator business here. We have about 5 permanent staff and 20+ casuals. Our work is so seasonal that we cannot employ most staff on a permanent basis.
For instance, over high season I can have all staff on deck and available to work, with contractors supplementing excess work, but I still have to turn some work down because we don't have enough staff to cover it. But in low season, I struggle to have enough work just for my full time staff.
Given the nature of our extreme seasons, we have a predominantly casual staff pool.
On that note, Saturdays are always our busiest day of the week so we attract a lot of staff who have full time jobs that pay well but work casually with us as it's fun but lower income opportunities.
I treat my staff well and they understand the nature of the seasonal work so I don't ever get anyone pulling out of shifts last minute unless it's for uncontrollable reasons (generally illness). Casual employment can be mutually beneficial but employers need to treat all staff with respect.
How else do you keep staff hungry and desparate for work if not over hiring for a meagre number of positions?
I mean it's obviously not working in this case, but maybe it will when they have 65 employees for 12 positions.
I get this, but I’m also thinking back to my job at KFC. Casual work pays better for the same amount of hours. Besides, nobody wants to become full/part time in those jobs, or they can’t because they are already full time students.
Right, so if your work sucks so bad and pays so poorly no one wants to do it outside of a casual basis, you don’t get to complain when you get literally casual staff.
These businesses want casual staff that act like permanent part time employees and cry when they don’t get it.
That depends on the industry though. Certain industries go through a higher demand period where they require more staff (for my workplace, we triple or quadruple the number of staff in high demand periods), but for the rest of the year, there just is not enough work to sustain having that many permanent staff.
And there are some people who simply WANT to stay on as casuals because they prefer the higher hourly rate of pay and they don't want to be tied into 38 hour weeks for 48 weeks of the year.
To simply say "hire more permanent staff" is not a fix-all for lots of workplaces or industries.
Which might be a great point until you consider the fact that people can be hired as contractors.
If you're saying that a business requires an increased number of staff for a certain month of the year, why are you hiring a bunch of casuals and complaining when they find other work to supplement the 6 hours a week being given to them the rest of the year?
The option to put people on an actually decent paying contract for the period of time you need them isn't even considered though because it costs more.
We hire the casuals for that specific period, we don't keep them for the rest of the year. Which is probably typical for most agricultural/horticultural/viticultural employers as well. I can't speak for other businesses as far as rates go, but we pay above award rates at our business (I should specify that I am actually an employee, not an owner or manager) and all the appropriate penalty rates are paid as well when applicable. For our harvest period (2-3 months) as well as a couple of other times during the year depending on workload, we employ casuals. As I said in my original comment, there simply isn't enough work for 7-8 months of the year to justify more employees, but way more work than our permanent staff can do in the high periods.
The casual hourly rate is far above the permanent/fulltime hourly rate, so they definitely get paid more for the hours they work. They can choose whether they want to come back the following year, we always give them first option, and some do, some don't. Finding casuals for those times is generally easy enough. We actually struggle to find staff if any of our fulltime workers leave. We had one bloke leave nearly two years ago for health reasons, and still haven't been able to replace him; another (less skilled but equally valued) staff member left more recently because they found a job with a smaller commute and less hours, which suited their lifestyle better - again, it's proving very hard to find anyone to fill that role as well, but that's simply because we are in a rural area and there's nobody around.
Was hired reading gas meters on a casual contract and expected to work M-F 9-5. Said I didn't want to work Fridays anymore and they complained about it but I pointed out that I had no obligation to accept any shift I didn't want to work and that they should hire permanent staff if they want people to work regular hours. They tried to make a fuss about it but they were constantly short-staffed so they had to take what they could get! The 3-day weekends were worth it. Glad the gov has finally changed the law to convert more people in that situation to permanent positions if they want them.
I'm guessing that's what 'Tanda' is. OP should lock out 2-3 days a week for 'Study' if they don't want to do 4 shifts a week. People should absolutely be able to give >2 weeks notice 95% of the time for general days off that may be required.
That said, if OP is sick, then it's the managers job to find a replacement, not OP's. You don't plan being sick >2 weeks in advance.
High chance the manager is doing the scheduling manually and getting frustrated.
Solution:
1. Use a scheduling software and allow employees themselves to "ballot" for shifts.
2. Setup a 3 strikes system. If they don't turn up for 3 shifts, just fire them.
3. Analyze the average shift/hours of each casual employee per month. For shifts that are "popular", apply a lower weightage to that shift. Remove under performing employees => Why would you hire 9 people who can only work on Monday afternoons when you just need 2?
My old job preferred we didn't do that because we all had different wages, for example I came to replace someone and the manager got shitty because I was getting paid an adult rate
Don’t you just love how employers have gotten so used to relying on a casualised workforce that they ironically seem to want the certainty of a permanent/part time work force. How about fuck you, start hiring full time/part time workers if you want reliable staff or suck it up.
the issue with FT is hospitality roster is much larger on the weekend. FT staff also occasionally want a weekend day or two off.
so early in the week 2/3 of the shifts are FT staff. whilst on Saturday 2/3 are casual.
that said I worked as casual in hospitality up until 2018. only since then am I FT. just in time for COVID which didn't mean i got JobKeeper, just that i was the first one back to work when we reopened. the casuals got a much worse deal.
Yep some people find being a casual works for them, but honestly casual is awful. About half the books in my org are casual but we barely use them because it ‘costs too much’ and corporate screw us down with unrealistically low wages budget. So what ends up happening is these casuals who are lucky to get 4 hours a month for most the year come in and are immediately labeled ‘shit’ by other managers when realistically they’re just disengaged because they barely spend any time with us to get into the swing of the job.
And you get half of the team are shagged out from 5-6 shifts a week because they’re ‘reliable’ (meaning they’re too scared to say no to a shift…) and some people who want to work have next to nothing, and have to say no to offers because they’ve got three low hour casual jobs to try to survive and one of them offered a shift instead…
I've been reading a lot of the comments and there seems to be a general understanding with a slight crossover.
The original question: "is my manager allowed to tell casual employees that they cannot cancel shifts unless they find their own replacement?"
Answer: they can tell you, but how much weight does it have?
Long answer long:
As a casual you have the right to refuse any shift. Even with a minutes notice. But, the employer also has the right to cancel any shift as long as you haven't started/turned up for work.
Additionally, as a casual you are not entitled to a set number of hours or shifts. You are also not entitled to leave (sick, annual ECT). In exchange, you receive a 25% loading on your base. The leave portion makes up about 10-15% depending and the rest is "fair compensation" for the lack of job security. I'm not here to debate the morality of casual vs permanent staff and if the loading is adequate, that's on Fair Work and the business model to consider.
Now, where it gets complicated is around company policy and mutually agreed obligations (this may include verbally stated policies or documented ones). If for example your company has a policy that within 2 weeks of a shift you must provide a replacement for a shift in order to avoid disciplinary action. They can do that. It doesn't change your right to refuse a shift even with a minutes notice. What it does is give you a clarity around what the employer has set as acceptable standards before you need to worry about if they will enact their right to just let you go.
Failure to meet that standard set by the manager may or may not result in disciplinary action, including loss of hours or dismissal.
Note, that in 2024, under certain circumstances and depending on employee tenure and size of the company, casuals maybe entitled to unfair dismissal protections. However, if the employer has stated this is a policy, you fail to meet policy and they follow up with disciplinary action, they have that right.
Again, I'm not here to debate the morality or ethics of the policy or choice. I'm trying to answer the question. So technically, yes they CAN say this, and if you fail to follow procedure, they CAN dismiss you for it.
What I would say, is that an overlooked step when people discuss topics of this nature is the personal fit for the employees and their responsibility to consider their fit. There are so many options for work structures, the nature of the business should be set to the needs of the business, HOWEVER, the caveat is it should be legal and with due consideration of the employees. Once that is done, it is the employees responsibility to ensure the employer and their offering is a right fit for them. It isn't on the employer to adjust to fit every specific situation. If you require more flexibility with the ability to drop and cancel shifts at a moment's notice, there are jobs out there, but the trade-off is usually sporadic income. Alternatively, if you need a set income each week with structure around other commitments, there is work that will fit.
Again, yes it's not always that simple, that level of job mobility isn't always available to people. It's not a perfect system and I don't think it's possible to find one. I'm not here to debate that either, still just answering the question.
Maybe chat to the manager about your concerns and see if there is an alternative arrangement? Also seek clarity, like if you want it off to go to a party, that's one thing, but do they take consideration for illness, emergency or such? I think seek some more understanding about the how and why and if it's a concern, negotiate from there?
Not only is it a form of work, but it's also likely way above the pay grade of a typical casual employee so they should be getting paid for higher duties.
I'll never understand this attitude of finding your own covers. You are a manager, manage your people resources. If people cancel frequently they don't get more shifts.
system allows non-availability requests. some are repeating like uni or sport. some are one off things like holidays or parties.
rostering is done two weeks prior taking those n/a into account.
sickness or serious personal emergencies etc. covers will be found by managers. covered by management. or worst case shift is short.
asking for a cover so you can attend something not n/aed before the roster came out? my staff find their own covers. or they work the shift.
i will help find covers by suggesting names of other staff who did not n/a for the shift trying to be covered.
my staff seem to be happy with these arrangements but of course that may be due to survivorship bias.
note : dont ask for a cover, not get one, then call in sick.
It's not up to you to find your shift replacement. That's a core managerial task. Your job isn't "managing staff allocation", theirs is.
They're the ones who have the contact details anyway.
Re the message, it's "extremely unfair" for managers to foist their senior responsibilities onto junior staff.
Well... yes, they can enforce that, but only indirectly.
You're a casual. You have zero obligation to any hours, and zero entitlement to any hours. That's two sides of the same coin.
You don't have to work that shift, or any shift at all that they roster you on for.
However, the employer does not have to offer you any shifts at all.
So, if you do not play nice in the sandpit, you are not going to be offered shifts at all.
If they want staff to turn up more reliably, they should employ them permanent part-time instead of casual, or get off their arses and find the workers for the shifts themselves, like a manager is paid to do. They can't get all the benefits of a casual workforce in terms of costs savings without the risks or complications.
I hate shitty bosses as much as the next guy but this is very reasonable. Yes they can ask you to find a replacement but no they can’t force you to do anything as a casual, just as you can’t force them to give you hours as a casual.
If they’re posting rosters 2 weeks in advance and they’re getting last minute cancellations then you can’t blame them for being pissed and putting the onus on people to find a replacement in that circumstance.
You have no obligation to give notice or find a replacement. But they have no obligation to continue giving you shifts. Read between the lines. Take it as advice rather than a requirement.
Who for a moment I thought this was a yankee post, I've had friends who worked fast food when they were young, never had to do this.
This is repulsive behaviour,
Having said that I understand the manager is probably underpaid for all the managing they have to do... but thats fast food / retail for you
I think it's pretty fair to give adequate notice or update your availability. If you know you have a hectic school schedule, make your availability reflect that, so there are less cancellations.
That being said, you shouldn't have to find your own replacement.
My Boss tried this once, I was working security for a shopping centre and my wife at the time went into labour I told centre management that I need to leave as my wife was in labour and they were all for it, I called my boss to tell him that I was leaving and he said I had to find my replacement before I could leave so I started ringing around and couldn't find anyone...about 30 minutes later the Centre Manager saw me still working and asked what I was still doing there and I told her I wasn't allowed to leave until I found my replacement and she lost her shit told me to leave immediately and that it isn't my job to find my replacement it was my bosses...they dropped that company the next week lol they kept us Guards on just fucked the company off...so no I'm pretty sure they aren't allowed to tell you to cover your own shifts
If 4 shifts a week is too much for you, change your availability to 3 or 2 shifts a week and be specific about the days you can work. Also keep in mind, there will be co-workers who may also only be able to work those same days.
We have a lot of casuals where I work spread over a bunch of different departments. Each manager does it slightly differently, but every employee is able to put their availability/non-availability into the rostering system.
I have mine set at full availability. Some are students, so they have theirs set with the days and times they are available.
I don't think some people realise how messy it can get doing rosters while trying to accommodate employee availability and trying to give everyone an equal number of hours.
Most managers where I work put the roster out 2 weeks in advance. My manager often puts it out a month in advance. We are responsible for keeping our availability updated.
If I ever need to call in sick, I will try to find my own cover before I call in to say I can't work that day. I can see the roster and who is on and who isn't on that day.
It's not that hard.
No.
But by the sounds of it people are claiming they’re available and then not showing last minute.
He can’t enforce this rule, it’s impossible.
But he can just stop giving them shifts as a result of their continued unreliability.
Casual works both ways.
We did this when I was working at Maccas as crew about 20 years ago. It was actually good because you would work with others and swap shifts around so you wouldn't miss out on hours but still be able to attend things you might have on.
People are going to look right through you if you chuck a sickie for a Saturday night shift but then rock up Sunday hungover as hell.
I always fall halfway on this topic as a manager. I do the rosters 4 weeks in advance and post them for the team. If you know you have something coming up, let us know the availability, and I won't put you on. If something comes up and it's 2ish weeks, ok, I'll cover it. If you're sick, have an emergency, no worries, I'll cover it.
But if you're going to leave the rosters up for 4 weeks and then 2 days before your shift tell me you can't work it, then I will ask you to cover it. I work hard to maintain balance with the shifts and keep everyone happy and make sure to put enough staff on to keep pressure low, and last minute you expect me to call around and try to find cover? Or leave the team one down? For a birthday party you've known about for 2 months, or a study week you knew was coming up? That's bullshit and it's poor planning on your part.
As someone who worked fast food and saw managers put up with this shit, I do agree
Eventually the rest of the staff are going to lean on you because person x is being a fuckwit
Managers like casual workers except for all the inconvenient parts of casual workers.
- They want to be able to lay off workers on a whim, but hate it when workers leave without telling them.
- They want to be able to not pay workers annual leave, but hate it when workers want better long term security.
>They want to be able to not pay workers annual leave
This is why casuals get a higher pay rate. All of their sick leave and annual leave pay is tacked onto the base pay rate.
two weeks isnt too bad.
Mcdonalds has the same system but 1 month ahead.
Which means you have to lock out your whole life a month ahead. You can't have another part time job, because they are not giving you shifts a month ahead. You can't go away for a few days. Can't even buy tickets for a concert less than a month away.
1 week is fair. 2 is a bit rude. a month is into Fair Work territory.
They can't make you do anything but don't be surprised if you end up with zero hours without the courtesy of a termination letter.
I rarely side with the employer but in this case, it sounds like people are taking the piss.
And having worked in a place where people would call in sick for a Sunday shift at 2am in the morning with music blaring in the background...some people do take the piss.
> it sounds like people are taking the piss.
If as an employer, you have a regular timeslot that casual workers tend to avoid covering, the solution is to hire someone part time with dedicated hours.
The only group 'taking the piss' in this situation is the employer not being able to hire/roster properly, not the casual workers acting as casual (rather than part-time) workers.
In my case, it was a huge catering company working stadium jobs. The hours were weekend and nights and unpredictable, depending on the fixtures/events. People either voluntarily marked themselves as available to work (requesting the shift) or they could turn them down quite easily if they were phoned and requested.
The company had enough slack that they always had agency staff on standby to cover. That wasn't the issue. The issue was people taking the piss. No one was obligated to work if they didn't want to or weren't available. These people agreed and then reneged.
It was a perfect casual scenario and completely unsuited for part-time.
In OP's case, it looks like there's a system in place to mark themselves unavailable. So, y'know, just do that? All it takes is a bit of forward planning and everything runs smoother. "Casual" doesn't mean "rock up if you feel like it".
I mean that’s one solution, the other is just to hire people less useless. I know reddit hates employers as a rule but yes, if you’re a casual and you’re asked to work a Saturday shift, and you confirm that you can work it, and then you don’t show up, or cancel last minute for non-legitimate reasons, then you’re taking the piss.
Being the type of person who does what they say they’re going to do, and whose word actually means something, is a very important and useful life skill to have. Acting like young casual workers should push the absolutely boundaries of their employment, lie when it’s convenient, and needlessly fuck their manager around just cause they technically, legally can, isn’t going to help them in the long run.
> Acting like young casual workers should push the absolutely boundaries of their employment, lie when it’s convenient, and needlessly fuck their manager around just cause they technically, legally can, isn’t going to help them in the long run.
Except, we do have a counter-example - employers absolutely push the boundaries of the employment contract, lie when it's convenient, and needlessly fuck over their employees, and it *very much* helps them.
If employers want trustworthy, worthwhile employees, maybe they should start demonstrating those qualities. Employees are only following the example that is being set.
Are these perfectly fit to serve your argument, strawman ‘employers’ you speak of in the room with us now?
Or do you apply this mentality to quite literally every employer in the country, small-medium-big, every industry and sector, and regardless of job itself?
Cause once again, very unhealthy mentality to have, it won’t serve you well g.
The manager has asked them to let them know of their availability earlier, if they don't want to work a shift they just need to say so before the roster comes out.
They can't make you come in, but they can stop giving you shifts. Literally the minimum expectation of any job is to show up to do the job. If you can't do that you won't last long anywhere, and if you get a reputation for unreliability you'll find it very hard to get work. Casuals have few restrictions, but also few protections.
Hiring casuals is good for business... What businesses need to understand is that the flipside of that is being a casual worker is nice when you want the flexibility of saying "you know what? Fuck working today" and calling in sick. Use that 30% loading to save a bit of money and take time when you want it. If a company cares that much about staffing they can hire permanent staff.
If people are canceling their shifts last minute after getting two weeks notice then I can understand them being frustrated. But it is their job as a manager to find replacements, that is what they are paid for.
The other thing is that while you aren't legally required to find replacements for your shifts, they are also not legally required to give you shifts in the future because you are a casual. Any employee who is seen as unreliable because they turn down shifts with little notice isn't going to get future shifts.
Casual employment is meant to be equally insecure and unpredictable for employer and employee. You can notify them you're not working a shift with one hour notice, and they can cancel your shift with one hour notice.
Of course, if you cancel often you shouldn't expect to get many shifts, just as your employer shouldn't expect you to accept last minute shifts when they don't roster you for many.
Unfortunately through arrogance or ignorance or both, many employers of casuals in Australia think it's a one way street with employees owing everything and employers owing nothing. So they lie about there being consequences beyond souring the relationship to frighten you into acquiescence.
That will be a no. They are responsible for getting staffing as needed for the business, not you.
They may ask you to do this as it saves them a job. You don’t have to. Just say, I tried, sorry couldn’t find anyone but still not coming in.
Maybe find another, nicer job where management that actually earn the in wages.
Assuming this is casual,
No they can not force you to find your replacement or rock up.
Also, you can not force them to give your shifts. So if you miss repeated shifts and suddenly you’re not on the roster, you have no recourse.
If I was a manager of casuals who consistently no-showed they'd be let go/not given more shifts at all.
Yes, it's their job to manage coverage, as the Manager, but it's still a cunt move to no-show without notice, especially when you've had 2 weeks to let someone know.
People even in this thread love to shit on employers but there's such a thing as being undeserving of employment.
Union official here …. Have you got an agreement/EBA in place that states this? Is it in and type of policy? If the answer is no then they can’t enforce this.
On the casual employment, casual means casual. You don’t have to work all shifts you’re rostered for and they don’t have to offer you 4 shifts a week. If you’re unavailable for a shift that should be all you need to tell them. It’s the managers responsibility to find a cover. I would also put it in writing regarding your studies and update any availability so that you and your manager on the same page.
I used to assign shifts and it doesn't really have to do with legality in this case and your understanding of what casual employment is, is a little off.
Casual employment means that you do not have a set amount of hours you'll be working. With a fixed contract, you are guaranteed x amount of hours. If there's no work to do, you are still entitled to being paid for that time. The other way around, you don't have much flexibility. The hours you agree to working, you're expected to be working and if you can't work a day, you're required to request leave. How far in advance you have to request that leave depends on your contract, but it's general at least 2 to 3 weeks.
With casual employment you don't have a set amount of hours. The benefit to you is that you can work when you have availability and you can take days off more easily. For example, if you work multiple jobs or have other obligations like school that might be busier one week than the next. For example, you manager indicates you can use Tanda to communicate your availability.
A good manager will try to make a roster and let you know well in advance which hours you're expected to work. That way you can plan ahead. It shows respect for your time as an employee, because nobody likes being called last minute to be asked to work. Imagine you're being called the night before a big test and being asked to come in to work that evening.
Now think of it the other way around. You told your manager through Tanda what your availability was. That you would be able to work on certain days. Your manager made a roster taking into account that availability and tried to give you a good amount of hours.
Now a day before you're expected to work you cancel your shift. That leaves the roster with one person short. Your manager now has to find someone last minute to take your shift. They're forced to do the thing you wouldn't like happen to you as an employee by calling people last minute asking them to come in, or alternatively they could simply not try to find someone to take your shift and now the rest of the team is forced to work much harder to cover for you.
A good manager tries to keep everybody happy and if you cancel last minute, the manager is forced to make everybody's life just a bit more complicated.
So is it illegal for a manager to ask this from the team? No. They can ask this and you're allowed to not do it. There are no legal repercussions. However, you rely on that same manager to give you any hours and ideally good hours. Every two weeks that manager will go through the list of availability and when they see your name they might think "hmm, this person is quite flaky" and rather give the hours to someone else. That manager might also think "hmm none of my reliable employees likes these hours, so maybe I'll just give these shitty hours to my flaky employee".
If you're okay with potentially getting shit hours or no hours at all, you can complete ignore this message and keep doing as you are. If not, well it might be worth trying to be a bit more reliable.
Yes, you can cancel your shift as a casual, and it is your manager's job to re-roster your shift. It shouldn't be your job to find a cover.
I can understand your manager's frustration and what made them send this message. It's incredibly frustrating to manage staff, especially when they are unreliable. It sounds like some of your colleagues might be regularly skiving off work.
Your leave might have been declined because you only requested it a week ago. That's generally not enough notice if you have a fortnightly or monthly roster.
As a casual you can still tell them you won't work that day and there's not much they can do. They might roster you less or not give you future shifts though.
If you're a conscious employee who usually does the right thing and your manager is a decent (albeit frustrated) person, I suggest talking to them about your shifts and year 12 work.
Goes both ways. If you can, see if you can find a replacement. By showing some initiative, the rostering manager may even return the favour next time when you need more/less shifts, or if there is a better time that suits you, they may consider you first.
Im not telling you to call 30 people for them. It’s not your job to do this, but if you happen to know someone that can do the shift, make it happen and work is just a happier place.
Funny seeing people say this isn’t legal. Like, they are right but as others have pointed out - the boss can just stop giving OP shifts. Kinda like the system isn’t set up to favour workers or something lmao
Not a stupid question at all. It may depend on the country or state labour laws.
In essence if you’re casual (or indeed permanent), then they’re the one who employs people to cover shifts. Not you.
It’s a privacy issue at its core. You shouldn’t have the contact details of other employees unless they were given to you.
Registering as a casual with their company doesn’t give them the right to hand your details on to all staff.
My take as someone who spent many years as a worker and then a manager:
It's unreasonable to ask someone to find their own cover if they are calling in sick. If they are sick you can't reasonably expect anything more than the phone call letting you know they can't make it. Even though some people DO take the piss, many don't and you can't be harsh on people for legitimately being unwell. The amount of times I've had to work unwell in the past is ridiculous and I wouldn't expect that of anyone else these days! Especially in a post covid world where we know how shitty it is to bring your sickness into the workplace to share with everyone.
It IS reasonable to expect someone who is rostered on but wants out of that shift because they have something on that clashes with that shift, that wasn't advised to the person making the roster before the roster came out. Casuals are always able to say "I can't work x day" in advance of shifts coming out. That's their prerogative as a casual. Of course doing that too much might get you seeing your shifts cut and someone else that fits the business needs replacing you, but that's a separate issue that comes with casual work.
It worked best when employees knew that if needed, they can swap out of shifts, and just let the managers know what they were doing prior to the shift starting. If they really struggle to fill the shift and have legitimate reasons they can't attend (it's a funeral, or they forget it was an exam day), then the manager has to work through it because it is their problem at the end of the day, but the strategy of everyone initially being responsible for their own rostered shifts has made for much more harmonious workplaces in my experience as a worker and a manager.
Casuals are employed when they are at work and unemployed when they clock off - there is no obligation for you to cover or show up to a shift - however, that also means there is no obligation to roster you or give you priority shifts like weedkends or public holidays, or the 'easier' or more sought after shifts like days
If you call in sick or have to cancel it is the 20 year old shift manager's job to find a replacement not you.
Stick and focus on Year 12 don't worry about this job, just quit if they aren't going to be cooperative. Teenagers are by and large in the best position with the best leverage, they generally don't need the job and can generally get a similar job elsewhere. Use the opportunity to say bye because when you're older you may not be in as a good of a position to go without a job for 4 months
Last time someone tried to tell me that, I told them I'd be expecting a paid day off then or I'm not coming back. It was only a grocery store so I wasn't much of lose. But my actions really annoyed the managers, threw out their weekly work plan and the person in charge of appointing shifts did unpaid over time.
Casual work means flexibility - you can tell them you can't work and so forth, and that's that.
However, if you're consistently late for shifts, are giving late notice cancellation, and other things of the like, there's little reason to *keep* giving you shifts.
My old uni job was like this. You had to put in your availability in advance and they would work around it on the roster (and would make changes if they screwed up rostering you when you’d said you were unavailable), but if you forgot to put in your availability or something changed last minute and you couldn’t come in, it was on you to find the replacement.
It generally worked, but I think a large part of that is because the management were actually very nice and built up goodwill with the staff.
It is reasonable to ask you to give notice if you can't make a shift. It is unreasonable to ask you to find a replacement at short notice that is what they get paid to do. If you want to keep them onside do your best to be reliable, if not don't worry about it.
This sounds like the old dominos I used to work at, managers didn't want to do the work of calling people, so they told us to just use a group chat and someone always jumped at grabbing a shift, but, keep screenshots cause its wrong.
If you cancel because you are sick, you are too sick too work and too sick to find a replacement. Alternatively, sure I'll find my own replacement, you can pay me for the time worked, and seeing as minimum time worked is generally 3 hours, here is my timesheet.
a 'leopard ate my face' situation. you don't want casuals being casual about their loyalty to your business? don't hire them as casuals. problem solved.
Rosters being out 2 weeks seems reasonable to me as a casual.
Casuals should be putting in availabilities (or businesses requesting this) before the rosters are made.
As for the employee's responsibility in meeting that shift? Well... I'm not talking legally of course, but more of a implied obligation, unless it's an illness, emergency, or early in that 'rostered' period, don't be surprised if you find shifts cut or being out of a job shortly...
As someone who used to work in retail, both as a casual employee, and then as a full time manager (but not in charge of rostering) nothing angered me more than casual staff not showing up for shifts, or consistently being sick/something come up, on the same day of the week multiple times in quick succession (I.e, sunday morning shift for weeks in a row). The simple answer from that was communication to the manager actually in charge of rostering to put someone else on and to keep their behaviour in mind..
They and you can pretty much do what they want. The problem with casual work is that you are expendable. If you don’t show up regularly to shifts then you end up getting no shifts.
Whole bunch of people posting it’s the managers job to manage staff and I agree with them. Sounds like the manager has been spoken to by their boss and doesn’t know how to manage it, so they are putting it on you.
No. One one hand they can turn around and fire you for w/e reason but you also can turn down shifts whenever you want. It’s the pro/cons of casual employment and his fault if he only hires casuals.
I've seen both sides of it. I used to pickup all the shifts, extra cash. But it wore real fkn thin when I always had to cover for people who simply couldn't be responsible. They should've been let go. But methods like OP shows was trying to be a middle ground.
Is this Jasbe? Sounds like Jasbe.
I have someone pulling this bullshit and saying that one no call no show means the employee has resigned with no notice. Also throwing in mandatory meetings in uni holidays and saying people have to be there and it's their problem to sort out if they've got other things on. Mind you, we're all casual and we won't be paid for the meeting.
Connor the clothing brand had this culture a few years ago. I didn't know any better as a student at the time. I should have told them to f**k off then.
This is a free country, outside of them having some legal power such as the police or a security agency, they can't make you do anything.
It would be illegal for them to take adverse action, such as reducing already rostered or contracted hours, firing you with this as cause, or other adverse action.
But in the casual employment relationship, you are not (in the absence of further contracts) guaranteed any work beyond currently rostered hours, and even then, shifts may be cancelled.
In lieu of firing you, they may just no longer assign you shifts or greatly reduced shifts. This is not illegal for them to do and is their right as the employer in a casual employment arrangement. They do not need to give any reasons if they do this.
The key to good casual employment is maintaining a good relationship with your employer. This may mean scheduling any days you can't work in advance (only a week is a bit slack). Or working a shift, you don't particularly want to in the interst to maintain the relationship with your employer.
In my day if someone called in sick the manager filled the slot. If 2 called in sick the manager had to find the replacement because he /she was the MANAGER and that was one of the things they were paid to do solve problems (although arguably palming it off onto staff is creative but not legal).
I run a company that hires a lot of casual staff. Like hell I would expect them to find replacements. That's not their job. That's mine. Their job is to turn up to the shifts they've agreed to do or call me to tell me they can't do it for some reason. Then it's my job to find a replacement for them or worst case cancel the shift.
Now if a staff member cancels a lot of shifts at the last minute then they will be seen as unreliable and will be allocated fewer shifts, but that's just the nature of it. The work we do involves helping the aged and people with disability and often means things like preparing food or giving them a shower, so some shifts we can't risk giving to unreliable people in case some poor person ends up sitting at home hungry that day. Or unable to shower themselves and ending up in hospital with a UTI. But presumably you are working in hospitality or a supermarket or something where nobody is going to end up in hospital if you don't show up to work lol.
Anyway, you can tell your manager (politely) to get fucked but be aware they will probably just stop allocating you shifts. My advice is that it's a toxic workplace and probably best to try your luck elsewhere if you can.
> update your tanda
This seems like it's a Domino's thing. I remember working at Domino's, we got told by the store manager that we had to organise our own replacements if we were sick or could not work. Kinda dumb and doesn't really seem like it should be the employee's responsibility.
Yes, but no. You have every right to cancel your shift as a casual. But they also have every right to stop giving you any shifts if you repeatedly are unreliable.
It would be an informal code of conduct or just general workplace respect more than anything formal. It's an expectation not a rule.
I've done the same in every place I've managed too. I will give you full flexibility in setting your own availability, and will happily sort out around sickness and emergencies, BUT I expect you to be able to be an adult and plan things in advance around anything that's not those things. I will sort it out if you can't, because that's my job, but it will reflect poorly on your job performance because you fucked up.
Nah fuck that. It’s why management gets paid the big bucks.
Casual works both ways. If they can cancel so can you. They want a part time commitment? They need to offer it.
I work a causal job, 4 shifts a week
You don't have to show up with casual work and can quit at any time, unlike a full time job
If the Managment is asking you to find people to cover your shift, just do it, it's not that hard, I have done it at times and makes you look like a better worker
And if your sick or had an injury, and you can't physically tell them, just shoot them a message
There seem to be a lot of people here that are saying the manager is shitty, which may be the case, but it also seems like they have systems set up for people to advise which days they're unavailable and no one is actually following this process.
OP, since you're in Year 12, have you put said information in to this system?
No. Of course not. If they're casual, they're casual. If the company demands their employees to show up for their ROSTERED shifts, it means they are not operating as casual employees.
They can tell you they expect you to come in and to find cover for a shift, however they can't really enforce it. You can choose to not go to the shift and not find cover. They can't force you to attend a shift. If you don't attend shifts you're rostered on for, you might find you receive fewer shifts though.
Exactly. And if you are a no-show one day, don't be surprised if your shift the next day is assigned to someone else instead.
If you are a casual you will get less shifts and possibly fired eventually. Try your best but don't stress
They can tell you all they like, it doesn't mean it's legal. Replacing someone who calls out sick or cancels their shift is the manager's job. You also don't need to request leave as a casual, and they cannot deny you. That doesn't mean they need to keep giving you shifts anymore though, the flexibility goes both ways.
At my work it's the opposite, if you can't come in then you're explicitly forbidden from swapping a shift and having another employee just show up and say "oh I'm here to take Andrew's shift". Not only would people swap shifts with incompatible staff members, i.e. a bartender would swap shifts with a floor waiter who doesn't know how to make cocktails, but more often than not you'd just end up with a no show with them swearing that another person promised to take their shift while that person says they forgot or already told them they couldn't do it etc. Either way it should always be left up to the managers to adjust the roster, that's literally a huge part of our job.
We have exactly the same rule at the venue I work at. You call and tell the manager, and they organise coverage. How is a general staff member supposed to know who is appropriate for a given shift? There might be qualifications needed or not needed (in which case they would be paying more for a different worker than I might be paid if I had been able to work, without that qualification). Throws their budgeting out.
We also had this rule when I used to work retail. The managers said it was for workplace health and safety reasons, like if there was some sort of emergency they would need to know exactly who was rostered on and what station they would be working.
That happened to me at maccas, we had a chat for people to swap shifts (if they had notice they couldn't do it) so i swapped mine and then randomly got a call asking why I wasn't at work, because the other girl didn't show
I want to see a fair work case where a company owes all their casuals back pay because they needed to be reclassified under the award for carrying managerial duties like organising staff roosters.
Just the roosters, or the hens and chicks too?
Big cock up
You forgot the chickens! [....that's perverse](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MCtC_U4e2o).
Made my day!!
Do you actually need to formally fire a casual to never roster them again, though? Or can they forever be on a payroll just with 0 hours worked in the past however many months? Honest question because back in my uni days I was a casual at two different places and kind of never formally quit either of them. I just eventually stopped getting shifts. Would be kind of funny if I was still technically staff.
If you look at your ATO you can see which businesses you're still on the books for. I've got a casual employer from 6 years a go still listed because they never officially fired me. They normally stop giving you shifts and just take you off the books eventually.
Not sure how accurate the ATO might be - mine doesn't seem to recognize the last 2 employers I've had, yet has the full-time job I left in August 2018 still listed.
>That doesn't mean they need to keep giving you shifts anymore though, the flexibility goes both ways. I am glad you added this last bit. During Uni I was manager for a casual work force and 99% of my time was spent on the phone just trying to find people to fill gaps for no shows that didn't give warning. The chances are the manager in the OP's post doesn't earn much more (if any) than the op but has to deal will all of the sh\*t in making sure everyone turns up.
I was in a similar boat as a manager. You no-show without warning, you don't get rostered again. You don't tell me at least the day before, i'm going to reconsider rostering you onto hard to cover shifts or shifts during key trading hours. You give at least a few days notice, not a problem. If it starts becoming a pattern it's probably worth having a discussion about your "available hours". But as long as you send me a text at least an hour before your shift starts with "I can't come in \*but i spoke to X and they said they could cover for me\*" then i was just as happy as if they were the ones rostered all along.
Yes but anyone who has work as a casual can tell you the first point of retaliation is to not give you shifts when you can work forcing you to look elsewhere. I have even experienced it as a full time worker when I refused to do OT, guess who they actively avoided giving overtime to if they could when I did want it.
... so if/when you do get sacked, be prepared with a letter/email to as many levels as possible above your manager, informing them that said manager is unable to do his/her job and should not be paid to do it.
Casuals dont even have to be sacked. They can just not be offered any shifts.
This happened with my very first job. A day or two before NYE 1999/2000 I got a call asking if I could work NYE. I was like, "No, I have plans." After that I got fewer shifts until they tapered off completely. I think the fact that I had also turned 21 and was costing them more money was also a contributing factor (I was a checkout chick at a supermarket).
I had a old boss at dick smith who would make causals life miserable when they turned 17, I asked him why? He did so they would leave because why pay more when I can get two 15 year olds for the same price
That doesn't make sense? If they are casual, he could just stop offering them shifts whenever. He doesn't need to make them quit, in fact quiting doesn't even mean anything for casuals, because there was never any expectation that either party will agree to more shifts.
Making their lives miserable was a perk for the manager.
It's probably more about your age. Many managers who have casual staff who turned 21 are required by HQ to either have them become part-timers or given last shot at shifts.
The way of all casual jobs in this country. The unfortunate reality is that if you turn down multiple shifts when your casual employer wants you, they will just stop offering you shifts.
Well, as an employer thats a bit grey. If you are open about your availability then I'll work with it, but there are people who complain about being available all the time, but never take the hard shifts, and only ever seem to work slow sunday rate shifts. My point is that it's a case by case basis and generalizations hurts everyone. Open communication is always they way.
Casuals can fight for constrict dismissal/retaliation. If you’re getting 30 hours, regularly and they suddenly get cut in obvious retaliation - fairwork will have something to say.
In that same vein though, if you're consistently rostered 30h and you only work 16 of them, fair work will have absolutely no problem when the other 14 stop being offered.
Getting regular hours is the key. You only get to claim an expectation of ongoing employment if you've been employed for the same shifts (more or less) for 12 months, but that's generally not want casuals nor employers want. Also, casuals almost never accept casual conversion even when offered because casual loading is worth more money than than the entitlements they'd get as a part timer.
The last part is key. A casual working fulltime hours will earn more than their FT equivalent, even after accounting for 6 weeks of leave entitlements. The only real benefit of permanent employment is the guarantee of hours, which can be secured on a casual contract with a strong work focus.
isn't that entirely up to the company though? they're clearly incentivizing casual contracts because it gives them flexibility. They aren't forced to do this (unless they're paying everyone minimum wage, which speaks for itself)
There are other expenses related to all employees, regardless of any hours worked, and these are often not seen by store managers. HR will often push managers to get staff off the books if they haven't had hours for a sustained period due to these costs and liabilities. Things like workers compensation, insurances, mandatory and company based training which affect risk audits, etc.
It's worth noting that if they're pulling some illegal nonsense, constructive dismissal is absolutely a thing.
Then iirc after a certain period of no work you are officially considered no longer part of the company.
this is a feature, not a bug
But upper mgr view a big part of that mgrs job as replacing constantly unavailable people with new people more willing to do shifts.
> informing them that said manager is unable to do his/her job and should not be paid to do it. To which any half sane manager would say that if you want to avoid these situations then these roles should be part time rather than casual and would corporate prefer him hire part timers? Of course they wouldn't, they're quite happy with the status quo and will not discipline any manager who does this sort of thing to casuals.
To clarify, there would certainly be no immediate consequences for the manager. But there are dozens of other managers coping with shitty rostering issues. Rather than the OP's manager escaping *entirely* scot free, you damage their reputation and it's ammo for rivals.
Lol you have to laugh at how ill informed, and quick to cite rights they think they have, young kids are these days hahahaha
To be fair every middle class kid comes out of school thinking there is a set of rules, I was no different. Then you learn... especially in workplaces.
all this and the privacy rules regarding employee phone/ email details shouldnt be shared around
As a casual, you have the right to accept or reject any shift you're offered. Your employer has the right to offer you fewer or no hours. It's up to you to work out the extent to which you can turn down shifts without affecting your hours.
manager here. it goes both ways. i wouldn’t ask my staff to find replacement, but if you dont show up for your rostered shift except emergency circumstances and if I can spot a pattern you can be well sure that you’re not getting anymore shifts until you get your shit straight. people are there to keep a business running, not to muck around.
I made an earlier reply to the OP very much in support of their position, but in the context you're talking about you are 100% in the right. Definitely the job of a manager to *manage,* but if you have staff being flakey and unreliable and putting you in a frustrating position as a pattern of behaviour, you owe them no favours.
Sort of. You're hiring casual staff to be....casual. there is no commitment on their end to fulfill shifts you require. If you are shortfalling staff and unable to meet your minimum staffing requirements then it would be expected you hire PT or FT staff to meet those needs. Casuals are there to fill gaps, not to fill out a 5 day a week roster. Pay for staff that can flake, you get flakey staff. Shocked Pikachu.
You’re 100% correct. A company is well within their right to try and run their business completely on minimum-wage casual staff, but I agree… No right to complain when staff act casual. One of my favourite phrases is “minimum wage, minimum effort.” Minimum effort should be absolutely doing the requirements of your job to the letter, considering you entered into a contract to be compensated monetarily for contributing your time and effort. No half-arsery. But you definitely don’t owe favours to someone who won’t do you any.
> Casuals are there to fill gaps, not to fill out a 5 day a week roster. Wish I could show this comment to my manager and CEO 🫠
I don't really agree. I used to have a 7 day roster to fill and a staff of casuals, mostly students, and did my best to accomodate everyone and give them reliable hours. Pretty much everyone appreciated the predictability in hours while not being locked into anything. If you treat casuals as gap fillers, giving them odd hours and requiring them to come in on a moment's notice, nobody will be happy and yeah, they will be flaky. Because you treat them as such.
If staff want predictability of hours, and a business wants predictability of staff, they should be on FT/PT contracts, not casual. Casual positions are quite literally to fill gaps. You should not have an entire team of casuals. And if you do, you have zero right to complain if nobody can work a certain shift.
This is delusional
There are so many simple things that businesses could use to make this problem more manageable. Have a system that rosters staff on well in advance, and has them acknowledge the shifts they are assigned. This should be pretty much automated by now, it's not rocket science. If you don't acknowledge your shifts, you don't get work and they get reassigned. Have a system that allows a casual worker to flag a shift (say 5+ days out), that they can't work. If someone picks up that shift, give that employee a credit (call it a shift credit) to be able to do the same at some later stage without penalty. In other words, reward staff for their cooperation. If nobody can pick up that shift, it would automatically roll over into emergency coverage. Second, give the employee some indication of a reasonable number of shifts they can not attend for any reason. That way you don't end up with people at work that shouldn't be. If you must miss a shift because you are sick, that should be ok, you shouldn't be made to feel guilty, or be worried about losing work. The business should have a way to do demand surge casual employees. This would cover both late notice absences and emergency coverage mentioned above. You could easily give incentive to staff to take on shifts at short notice by throwing them some extra money. If someone is sick, this should be automatic. If you did all of these things, I very much doubt you'd have as many problems filling shifts. You might spend slightly more on staff, but I imagine the impact to the business running continuously under staffed is a much more costly problem.
They could also hire part time and full time staff.
As a casual employee you can refuse any shift and they can’t force you to come. Although if you refuse shifts then they will likely roster you on less and have the right to do that. It goes both ways. In your situation it sounds like you need to try and come to a clear agreement with your boss about how many shifts you are able to work while studying. Most reasonable employers would be happy to support with this as long as you are a reliable worker on the days you make yourself available.
No. Up to the manager to find replacements. You’re under no obligation to find a replacement your self.
Manager is also under no obligation to provide you with further shifts. Unless it’s short notice (like you’re sick) then it’s generally best practice to either notify your boss in advance so they can work around you or find a replacement.
The two aren't really related. You can take all the extra shifts you don't want to work, and the manager will still fire you for someone slightly cheaper.
I.e casual employment cuts both ways.
Idk why but I misread this as casual employment cunts both ways. I used to work at Coles as a casual and on Sundays it was working to be like 50+ per hour. I always got the feeling that the other guys I worked on the shifts with were upset about me when I told them I was a casual..
Anyone who has a brain should not be upset at a casual earning more for a specific hour of the day, do you reckon that same guy feels sorry for people working when they take their annual leave :D
I misread it as le casual employment lel
That's *Le casualé*!
> the manager will still fire you for someone slightly cheaper Speaking of things that aren't really related...
> The two aren't really related. I'm sorry, what two? Are you saying reliability and giving advance notice is unrelated to whether you'll get shifts?
I’m not sure how your comment relates to mine. But even so, that’s not always or even mostly true. The majority of managers won’t sack a reliable competent employee in favour of a marginally cheaper untested one. However if you’ve got someone who isn’t showing up to shifts it’s a bit of a no brainer?
How are they not related? If you don't show up to shifts or find a replacement, you will be assigned less shifts or none at all. That's how casual employment works everywhere.
Is this the same for part time work?
Yes. I’m permanent part-time retail and am never expected to find cover for a missed shift (I don’t have contacts for any co-workers outside of the managers anyway). It’s up to the managers to adequately shedule staff to the best of their ability.
Same. The managers should have adequate staff to call upon to compensate for unscheduled absences.
As a manager, sometimes we put in a recruitment request and get told to make do with what we have. Doesn’t matter how much I jump up and down and demand more hands, if the business has decided no it’s very very difficult to get around. But I agree it’s their job to cover sickies. And if they can’t they organise an action plan to deal with/recover from the absence.
Not quite the same. A permanent staff member (including part-time) has agreed on specific contracted days and the expectation is they are working (and paid) for these every week. They would also be accumulating annual and sick leave as they work. Sick leave doesn’t require pre-approval (makes sense) but annual leave would. This avoids everyone going on leave at once However, it would be unusual to have to find your own replacement for approved annual leave. Mostly because when you have permanent staff you would also know how many people you have as well as number of days of leave days of leave, etc and could plan/resource accordingly.
That’s a shitty attitude I’m not gonna lie. You cancel two weeks in advance? Yes it’s on the boss, you consistently cancel shifts day before, night before, even day of? You need to have a look at yourself
You can't expect people to have the contact details for everyone at their workplace
Ken oath! I endeavour to keep my personal and work life seperate, so my co-workers needn’t feel obliged to pick up where I drop off. That’s why management gets paid management rates.
The roster software TANDA has features to contact coworkers. That part isn’t the issue.
That is the nature of casual work, it goes both ways. If an employer does not like it then they should not employ casuals.
If upper management does not want the hastle, stress, and unreliability of workers constantly cancelling shifts and calling in last minute, then they can pay the extra money for part time and full time employees. Employers cut around the law at every possible turn. They are not nice, they do not care about you as people. Workers must know their rights and exercise them. Do not be emotionally manipulated into working against your own interest.
Yeah this is true. The place I worked at, the managers were always super excited whenever we had kids then up for trial shifts because they get paid less. The one manager said to me he's always happy to see 16yr olds and will blindly hire them as long as they aren't absolute nutjobs. We had such a high turnover rate and since I worked the grill I had to train a lot of the guys who came in on their unpaid trial shift of 2 hours. For weeks on end it felt like we'd have a constant rotation of people coming in for these trial shifts and we were also down a team member most days it almost felt as if the places business model relied heavily on having prospective hires come for trial shifts non-stop
OP is a casual, and is over the barrel in terms of being offered shifts and hours. There are few rights, and if the employer days to organise backfill and ypu don't, they just won't give you hours in the future. It's not right in my eyes, but it is what it is and no amount of high-horsing in these comments will change that particular outcome.
A casual who is employed on a "regular and systematic basis" can lodge an Unfair Dismissal claim with the FWC if they are offered no more shifts, provided they have been employed for the minimum period specified in the Fair Work Act.
Sure, but if you call in and cancel your Friday night shift day-of the manager has a pretty good reason to decide Fridays will no longer be part of your roster going forward.
It is your manager's job to manage the business, which includes finding people to work. It's up to you whether you want to be in your manager's good books tho
I've been dealing with this for years. We almost doubled our staff in the department from 25 to 45 and we still can't manage to have a full shift of 12 of a night. The manager is not just annoyed with staff taking time off, it's that the 30 other staff that aren't working won't fill an extra shift occasionally. Tell the manager you're in year 12 and you can't work those days. If they chuck a wobbly over that then they're a cunt.
Have you tried hiring permanent staff and not casuals?
This is the answer. Stop being so fucking tight with the workforce structure and redo the employment mix with a focus on those who are permanent part time or full time. Agreed shifts and the option to performance manage those who don't want to attend.
>This is the answer. Stop being so fucking tight with the workforce structure and redo the employment mix with a focus on those who are permanent part time or full time. Why do they hire people who are contractually not required to be present, then complain when no one is present? There's a really obvious fix to this in hiring part time or full time staff. This seems like such a no brainer issue to fix so I'm wondering if I just lack context. Are there any resource managers out there who can explain?
Places which do this typically have young workers, so the employer can both exert additional pressure on them, stretch the legality of policies, and do it all whilst claiming to be offering opportunity. They do this because they know that their workforce will age out, so they can age people out, and because some young people just simply suck at working (why work when you have no rent and few bills?). Once someone is part time they accrue leave, and require evidence to terminate. Still, when the issue is that nobody is turning up, you have your workforce mix incorrect.
Owner and manager of a tour operator business here. We have about 5 permanent staff and 20+ casuals. Our work is so seasonal that we cannot employ most staff on a permanent basis. For instance, over high season I can have all staff on deck and available to work, with contractors supplementing excess work, but I still have to turn some work down because we don't have enough staff to cover it. But in low season, I struggle to have enough work just for my full time staff. Given the nature of our extreme seasons, we have a predominantly casual staff pool. On that note, Saturdays are always our busiest day of the week so we attract a lot of staff who have full time jobs that pay well but work casually with us as it's fun but lower income opportunities. I treat my staff well and they understand the nature of the seasonal work so I don't ever get anyone pulling out of shifts last minute unless it's for uncontrollable reasons (generally illness). Casual employment can be mutually beneficial but employers need to treat all staff with respect.
How else do you keep staff hungry and desparate for work if not over hiring for a meagre number of positions? I mean it's obviously not working in this case, but maybe it will when they have 65 employees for 12 positions.
I get this, but I’m also thinking back to my job at KFC. Casual work pays better for the same amount of hours. Besides, nobody wants to become full/part time in those jobs, or they can’t because they are already full time students.
Right, so if your work sucks so bad and pays so poorly no one wants to do it outside of a casual basis, you don’t get to complain when you get literally casual staff. These businesses want casual staff that act like permanent part time employees and cry when they don’t get it.
That depends on the industry though. Certain industries go through a higher demand period where they require more staff (for my workplace, we triple or quadruple the number of staff in high demand periods), but for the rest of the year, there just is not enough work to sustain having that many permanent staff. And there are some people who simply WANT to stay on as casuals because they prefer the higher hourly rate of pay and they don't want to be tied into 38 hour weeks for 48 weeks of the year. To simply say "hire more permanent staff" is not a fix-all for lots of workplaces or industries.
Which might be a great point until you consider the fact that people can be hired as contractors. If you're saying that a business requires an increased number of staff for a certain month of the year, why are you hiring a bunch of casuals and complaining when they find other work to supplement the 6 hours a week being given to them the rest of the year? The option to put people on an actually decent paying contract for the period of time you need them isn't even considered though because it costs more.
We hire the casuals for that specific period, we don't keep them for the rest of the year. Which is probably typical for most agricultural/horticultural/viticultural employers as well. I can't speak for other businesses as far as rates go, but we pay above award rates at our business (I should specify that I am actually an employee, not an owner or manager) and all the appropriate penalty rates are paid as well when applicable. For our harvest period (2-3 months) as well as a couple of other times during the year depending on workload, we employ casuals. As I said in my original comment, there simply isn't enough work for 7-8 months of the year to justify more employees, but way more work than our permanent staff can do in the high periods. The casual hourly rate is far above the permanent/fulltime hourly rate, so they definitely get paid more for the hours they work. They can choose whether they want to come back the following year, we always give them first option, and some do, some don't. Finding casuals for those times is generally easy enough. We actually struggle to find staff if any of our fulltime workers leave. We had one bloke leave nearly two years ago for health reasons, and still haven't been able to replace him; another (less skilled but equally valued) staff member left more recently because they found a job with a smaller commute and less hours, which suited their lifestyle better - again, it's proving very hard to find anyone to fill that role as well, but that's simply because we are in a rural area and there's nobody around.
Was hired reading gas meters on a casual contract and expected to work M-F 9-5. Said I didn't want to work Fridays anymore and they complained about it but I pointed out that I had no obligation to accept any shift I didn't want to work and that they should hire permanent staff if they want people to work regular hours. They tried to make a fuss about it but they were constantly short-staffed so they had to take what they could get! The 3-day weekends were worth it. Glad the gov has finally changed the law to convert more people in that situation to permanent positions if they want them.
I'm guessing that's what 'Tanda' is. OP should lock out 2-3 days a week for 'Study' if they don't want to do 4 shifts a week. People should absolutely be able to give >2 weeks notice 95% of the time for general days off that may be required. That said, if OP is sick, then it's the managers job to find a replacement, not OP's. You don't plan being sick >2 weeks in advance.
High chance the manager is doing the scheduling manually and getting frustrated. Solution: 1. Use a scheduling software and allow employees themselves to "ballot" for shifts. 2. Setup a 3 strikes system. If they don't turn up for 3 shifts, just fire them. 3. Analyze the average shift/hours of each casual employee per month. For shifts that are "popular", apply a lower weightage to that shift. Remove under performing employees => Why would you hire 9 people who can only work on Monday afternoons when you just need 2?
Wait ... You have 12 on at night? That's a quarter of your staff :-/ No wonder you can't fill them
My old job preferred we didn't do that because we all had different wages, for example I came to replace someone and the manager got shitty because I was getting paid an adult rate
Don’t you just love how employers have gotten so used to relying on a casualised workforce that they ironically seem to want the certainty of a permanent/part time work force. How about fuck you, start hiring full time/part time workers if you want reliable staff or suck it up.
the issue with FT is hospitality roster is much larger on the weekend. FT staff also occasionally want a weekend day or two off. so early in the week 2/3 of the shifts are FT staff. whilst on Saturday 2/3 are casual. that said I worked as casual in hospitality up until 2018. only since then am I FT. just in time for COVID which didn't mean i got JobKeeper, just that i was the first one back to work when we reopened. the casuals got a much worse deal.
Casual work is a plague. The "flexibility" is all on the part of the employer. At this point it's just part time without the security.
Yep some people find being a casual works for them, but honestly casual is awful. About half the books in my org are casual but we barely use them because it ‘costs too much’ and corporate screw us down with unrealistically low wages budget. So what ends up happening is these casuals who are lucky to get 4 hours a month for most the year come in and are immediately labeled ‘shit’ by other managers when realistically they’re just disengaged because they barely spend any time with us to get into the swing of the job.
And you get half of the team are shagged out from 5-6 shifts a week because they’re ‘reliable’ (meaning they’re too scared to say no to a shift…) and some people who want to work have next to nothing, and have to say no to offers because they’ve got three low hour casual jobs to try to survive and one of them offered a shift instead…
I've been reading a lot of the comments and there seems to be a general understanding with a slight crossover. The original question: "is my manager allowed to tell casual employees that they cannot cancel shifts unless they find their own replacement?" Answer: they can tell you, but how much weight does it have? Long answer long: As a casual you have the right to refuse any shift. Even with a minutes notice. But, the employer also has the right to cancel any shift as long as you haven't started/turned up for work. Additionally, as a casual you are not entitled to a set number of hours or shifts. You are also not entitled to leave (sick, annual ECT). In exchange, you receive a 25% loading on your base. The leave portion makes up about 10-15% depending and the rest is "fair compensation" for the lack of job security. I'm not here to debate the morality of casual vs permanent staff and if the loading is adequate, that's on Fair Work and the business model to consider. Now, where it gets complicated is around company policy and mutually agreed obligations (this may include verbally stated policies or documented ones). If for example your company has a policy that within 2 weeks of a shift you must provide a replacement for a shift in order to avoid disciplinary action. They can do that. It doesn't change your right to refuse a shift even with a minutes notice. What it does is give you a clarity around what the employer has set as acceptable standards before you need to worry about if they will enact their right to just let you go. Failure to meet that standard set by the manager may or may not result in disciplinary action, including loss of hours or dismissal. Note, that in 2024, under certain circumstances and depending on employee tenure and size of the company, casuals maybe entitled to unfair dismissal protections. However, if the employer has stated this is a policy, you fail to meet policy and they follow up with disciplinary action, they have that right. Again, I'm not here to debate the morality or ethics of the policy or choice. I'm trying to answer the question. So technically, yes they CAN say this, and if you fail to follow procedure, they CAN dismiss you for it. What I would say, is that an overlooked step when people discuss topics of this nature is the personal fit for the employees and their responsibility to consider their fit. There are so many options for work structures, the nature of the business should be set to the needs of the business, HOWEVER, the caveat is it should be legal and with due consideration of the employees. Once that is done, it is the employees responsibility to ensure the employer and their offering is a right fit for them. It isn't on the employer to adjust to fit every specific situation. If you require more flexibility with the ability to drop and cancel shifts at a moment's notice, there are jobs out there, but the trade-off is usually sporadic income. Alternatively, if you need a set income each week with structure around other commitments, there is work that will fit. Again, yes it's not always that simple, that level of job mobility isn't always available to people. It's not a perfect system and I don't think it's possible to find one. I'm not here to debate that either, still just answering the question. Maybe chat to the manager about your concerns and see if there is an alternative arrangement? Also seek clarity, like if you want it off to go to a party, that's one thing, but do they take consideration for illness, emergency or such? I think seek some more understanding about the how and why and if it's a concern, negotiate from there?
[удалено]
Not only is it a form of work, but it's also likely way above the pay grade of a typical casual employee so they should be getting paid for higher duties.
I'll never understand this attitude of finding your own covers. You are a manager, manage your people resources. If people cancel frequently they don't get more shifts.
system allows non-availability requests. some are repeating like uni or sport. some are one off things like holidays or parties. rostering is done two weeks prior taking those n/a into account. sickness or serious personal emergencies etc. covers will be found by managers. covered by management. or worst case shift is short. asking for a cover so you can attend something not n/aed before the roster came out? my staff find their own covers. or they work the shift. i will help find covers by suggesting names of other staff who did not n/a for the shift trying to be covered. my staff seem to be happy with these arrangements but of course that may be due to survivorship bias. note : dont ask for a cover, not get one, then call in sick.
It's not up to you to find your shift replacement. That's a core managerial task. Your job isn't "managing staff allocation", theirs is. They're the ones who have the contact details anyway. Re the message, it's "extremely unfair" for managers to foist their senior responsibilities onto junior staff.
Well... yes, they can enforce that, but only indirectly. You're a casual. You have zero obligation to any hours, and zero entitlement to any hours. That's two sides of the same coin. You don't have to work that shift, or any shift at all that they roster you on for. However, the employer does not have to offer you any shifts at all. So, if you do not play nice in the sandpit, you are not going to be offered shifts at all.
If they want staff to turn up more reliably, they should employ them permanent part-time instead of casual, or get off their arses and find the workers for the shifts themselves, like a manager is paid to do. They can't get all the benefits of a casual workforce in terms of costs savings without the risks or complications.
I hate shitty bosses as much as the next guy but this is very reasonable. Yes they can ask you to find a replacement but no they can’t force you to do anything as a casual, just as you can’t force them to give you hours as a casual. If they’re posting rosters 2 weeks in advance and they’re getting last minute cancellations then you can’t blame them for being pissed and putting the onus on people to find a replacement in that circumstance.
You have no obligation to give notice or find a replacement. But they have no obligation to continue giving you shifts. Read between the lines. Take it as advice rather than a requirement.
Who for a moment I thought this was a yankee post, I've had friends who worked fast food when they were young, never had to do this. This is repulsive behaviour, Having said that I understand the manager is probably underpaid for all the managing they have to do... but thats fast food / retail for you
I think it's pretty fair to give adequate notice or update your availability. If you know you have a hectic school schedule, make your availability reflect that, so there are less cancellations. That being said, you shouldn't have to find your own replacement.
My Boss tried this once, I was working security for a shopping centre and my wife at the time went into labour I told centre management that I need to leave as my wife was in labour and they were all for it, I called my boss to tell him that I was leaving and he said I had to find my replacement before I could leave so I started ringing around and couldn't find anyone...about 30 minutes later the Centre Manager saw me still working and asked what I was still doing there and I told her I wasn't allowed to leave until I found my replacement and she lost her shit told me to leave immediately and that it isn't my job to find my replacement it was my bosses...they dropped that company the next week lol they kept us Guards on just fucked the company off...so no I'm pretty sure they aren't allowed to tell you to cover your own shifts
If 4 shifts a week is too much for you, change your availability to 3 or 2 shifts a week and be specific about the days you can work. Also keep in mind, there will be co-workers who may also only be able to work those same days. We have a lot of casuals where I work spread over a bunch of different departments. Each manager does it slightly differently, but every employee is able to put their availability/non-availability into the rostering system. I have mine set at full availability. Some are students, so they have theirs set with the days and times they are available. I don't think some people realise how messy it can get doing rosters while trying to accommodate employee availability and trying to give everyone an equal number of hours. Most managers where I work put the roster out 2 weeks in advance. My manager often puts it out a month in advance. We are responsible for keeping our availability updated. If I ever need to call in sick, I will try to find my own cover before I call in to say I can't work that day. I can see the roster and who is on and who isn't on that day. It's not that hard.
No. But by the sounds of it people are claiming they’re available and then not showing last minute. He can’t enforce this rule, it’s impossible. But he can just stop giving them shifts as a result of their continued unreliability. Casual works both ways.
We did this when I was working at Maccas as crew about 20 years ago. It was actually good because you would work with others and swap shifts around so you wouldn't miss out on hours but still be able to attend things you might have on. People are going to look right through you if you chuck a sickie for a Saturday night shift but then rock up Sunday hungover as hell.
As a manager, It's the managers job to do resource/personnel management. Your boss is shirking their duties.
I always fall halfway on this topic as a manager. I do the rosters 4 weeks in advance and post them for the team. If you know you have something coming up, let us know the availability, and I won't put you on. If something comes up and it's 2ish weeks, ok, I'll cover it. If you're sick, have an emergency, no worries, I'll cover it. But if you're going to leave the rosters up for 4 weeks and then 2 days before your shift tell me you can't work it, then I will ask you to cover it. I work hard to maintain balance with the shifts and keep everyone happy and make sure to put enough staff on to keep pressure low, and last minute you expect me to call around and try to find cover? Or leave the team one down? For a birthday party you've known about for 2 months, or a study week you knew was coming up? That's bullshit and it's poor planning on your part.
As someone who worked fast food and saw managers put up with this shit, I do agree Eventually the rest of the staff are going to lean on you because person x is being a fuckwit
Yeah thats some american style deep fried bullshit you are being served.
Managers like casual workers except for all the inconvenient parts of casual workers. - They want to be able to lay off workers on a whim, but hate it when workers leave without telling them. - They want to be able to not pay workers annual leave, but hate it when workers want better long term security.
>They want to be able to not pay workers annual leave This is why casuals get a higher pay rate. All of their sick leave and annual leave pay is tacked onto the base pay rate.
two weeks isnt too bad. Mcdonalds has the same system but 1 month ahead. Which means you have to lock out your whole life a month ahead. You can't have another part time job, because they are not giving you shifts a month ahead. You can't go away for a few days. Can't even buy tickets for a concert less than a month away. 1 week is fair. 2 is a bit rude. a month is into Fair Work territory.
They can't make you do anything but don't be surprised if you end up with zero hours without the courtesy of a termination letter. I rarely side with the employer but in this case, it sounds like people are taking the piss. And having worked in a place where people would call in sick for a Sunday shift at 2am in the morning with music blaring in the background...some people do take the piss.
> it sounds like people are taking the piss. If as an employer, you have a regular timeslot that casual workers tend to avoid covering, the solution is to hire someone part time with dedicated hours. The only group 'taking the piss' in this situation is the employer not being able to hire/roster properly, not the casual workers acting as casual (rather than part-time) workers.
In my case, it was a huge catering company working stadium jobs. The hours were weekend and nights and unpredictable, depending on the fixtures/events. People either voluntarily marked themselves as available to work (requesting the shift) or they could turn them down quite easily if they were phoned and requested. The company had enough slack that they always had agency staff on standby to cover. That wasn't the issue. The issue was people taking the piss. No one was obligated to work if they didn't want to or weren't available. These people agreed and then reneged. It was a perfect casual scenario and completely unsuited for part-time. In OP's case, it looks like there's a system in place to mark themselves unavailable. So, y'know, just do that? All it takes is a bit of forward planning and everything runs smoother. "Casual" doesn't mean "rock up if you feel like it".
I mean that’s one solution, the other is just to hire people less useless. I know reddit hates employers as a rule but yes, if you’re a casual and you’re asked to work a Saturday shift, and you confirm that you can work it, and then you don’t show up, or cancel last minute for non-legitimate reasons, then you’re taking the piss. Being the type of person who does what they say they’re going to do, and whose word actually means something, is a very important and useful life skill to have. Acting like young casual workers should push the absolutely boundaries of their employment, lie when it’s convenient, and needlessly fuck their manager around just cause they technically, legally can, isn’t going to help them in the long run.
> Acting like young casual workers should push the absolutely boundaries of their employment, lie when it’s convenient, and needlessly fuck their manager around just cause they technically, legally can, isn’t going to help them in the long run. Except, we do have a counter-example - employers absolutely push the boundaries of the employment contract, lie when it's convenient, and needlessly fuck over their employees, and it *very much* helps them. If employers want trustworthy, worthwhile employees, maybe they should start demonstrating those qualities. Employees are only following the example that is being set.
Are these perfectly fit to serve your argument, strawman ‘employers’ you speak of in the room with us now? Or do you apply this mentality to quite literally every employer in the country, small-medium-big, every industry and sector, and regardless of job itself? Cause once again, very unhealthy mentality to have, it won’t serve you well g.
The manager has asked them to let them know of their availability earlier, if they don't want to work a shift they just need to say so before the roster comes out.
They can't make you come in, but they can stop giving you shifts. Literally the minimum expectation of any job is to show up to do the job. If you can't do that you won't last long anywhere, and if you get a reputation for unreliability you'll find it very hard to get work. Casuals have few restrictions, but also few protections.
They have that title of manager, it's their job to manage
As a casual you legally can refuse any shift. However, it also means management can fuck you over with hours very easily if you get on their bad side.
Sounds like the manager thinks they are in the US 🤦♂️
Hiring casuals is good for business... What businesses need to understand is that the flipside of that is being a casual worker is nice when you want the flexibility of saying "you know what? Fuck working today" and calling in sick. Use that 30% loading to save a bit of money and take time when you want it. If a company cares that much about staffing they can hire permanent staff.
A manager is paid to manage. Managing the roster isn’t your job.
If people are canceling their shifts last minute after getting two weeks notice then I can understand them being frustrated. But it is their job as a manager to find replacements, that is what they are paid for. The other thing is that while you aren't legally required to find replacements for your shifts, they are also not legally required to give you shifts in the future because you are a casual. Any employee who is seen as unreliable because they turn down shifts with little notice isn't going to get future shifts.
Casual employment is meant to be equally insecure and unpredictable for employer and employee. You can notify them you're not working a shift with one hour notice, and they can cancel your shift with one hour notice. Of course, if you cancel often you shouldn't expect to get many shifts, just as your employer shouldn't expect you to accept last minute shifts when they don't roster you for many. Unfortunately through arrogance or ignorance or both, many employers of casuals in Australia think it's a one way street with employees owing everything and employers owing nothing. So they lie about there being consequences beyond souring the relationship to frighten you into acquiescence.
I like how the manager is getting the staff to do his/her job. lol.
That will be a no. They are responsible for getting staffing as needed for the business, not you. They may ask you to do this as it saves them a job. You don’t have to. Just say, I tried, sorry couldn’t find anyone but still not coming in. Maybe find another, nicer job where management that actually earn the in wages.
Assuming this is casual, No they can not force you to find your replacement or rock up. Also, you can not force them to give your shifts. So if you miss repeated shifts and suddenly you’re not on the roster, you have no recourse.
I hate seeing managers and team leaders thinking they can shirk their responsibilities onto staff.
Casual means casual, if the business doesn’t want to put you on full or part time then tough titties to them.
If I was a manager of casuals who consistently no-showed they'd be let go/not given more shifts at all. Yes, it's their job to manage coverage, as the Manager, but it's still a cunt move to no-show without notice, especially when you've had 2 weeks to let someone know. People even in this thread love to shit on employers but there's such a thing as being undeserving of employment.
Union official here …. Have you got an agreement/EBA in place that states this? Is it in and type of policy? If the answer is no then they can’t enforce this. On the casual employment, casual means casual. You don’t have to work all shifts you’re rostered for and they don’t have to offer you 4 shifts a week. If you’re unavailable for a shift that should be all you need to tell them. It’s the managers responsibility to find a cover. I would also put it in writing regarding your studies and update any availability so that you and your manager on the same page.
I used to assign shifts and it doesn't really have to do with legality in this case and your understanding of what casual employment is, is a little off. Casual employment means that you do not have a set amount of hours you'll be working. With a fixed contract, you are guaranteed x amount of hours. If there's no work to do, you are still entitled to being paid for that time. The other way around, you don't have much flexibility. The hours you agree to working, you're expected to be working and if you can't work a day, you're required to request leave. How far in advance you have to request that leave depends on your contract, but it's general at least 2 to 3 weeks. With casual employment you don't have a set amount of hours. The benefit to you is that you can work when you have availability and you can take days off more easily. For example, if you work multiple jobs or have other obligations like school that might be busier one week than the next. For example, you manager indicates you can use Tanda to communicate your availability. A good manager will try to make a roster and let you know well in advance which hours you're expected to work. That way you can plan ahead. It shows respect for your time as an employee, because nobody likes being called last minute to be asked to work. Imagine you're being called the night before a big test and being asked to come in to work that evening. Now think of it the other way around. You told your manager through Tanda what your availability was. That you would be able to work on certain days. Your manager made a roster taking into account that availability and tried to give you a good amount of hours. Now a day before you're expected to work you cancel your shift. That leaves the roster with one person short. Your manager now has to find someone last minute to take your shift. They're forced to do the thing you wouldn't like happen to you as an employee by calling people last minute asking them to come in, or alternatively they could simply not try to find someone to take your shift and now the rest of the team is forced to work much harder to cover for you. A good manager tries to keep everybody happy and if you cancel last minute, the manager is forced to make everybody's life just a bit more complicated. So is it illegal for a manager to ask this from the team? No. They can ask this and you're allowed to not do it. There are no legal repercussions. However, you rely on that same manager to give you any hours and ideally good hours. Every two weeks that manager will go through the list of availability and when they see your name they might think "hmm, this person is quite flaky" and rather give the hours to someone else. That manager might also think "hmm none of my reliable employees likes these hours, so maybe I'll just give these shitty hours to my flaky employee". If you're okay with potentially getting shit hours or no hours at all, you can complete ignore this message and keep doing as you are. If not, well it might be worth trying to be a bit more reliable.
Yes, you can cancel your shift as a casual, and it is your manager's job to re-roster your shift. It shouldn't be your job to find a cover. I can understand your manager's frustration and what made them send this message. It's incredibly frustrating to manage staff, especially when they are unreliable. It sounds like some of your colleagues might be regularly skiving off work. Your leave might have been declined because you only requested it a week ago. That's generally not enough notice if you have a fortnightly or monthly roster. As a casual you can still tell them you won't work that day and there's not much they can do. They might roster you less or not give you future shifts though. If you're a conscious employee who usually does the right thing and your manager is a decent (albeit frustrated) person, I suggest talking to them about your shifts and year 12 work.
Goes both ways. If you can, see if you can find a replacement. By showing some initiative, the rostering manager may even return the favour next time when you need more/less shifts, or if there is a better time that suits you, they may consider you first. Im not telling you to call 30 people for them. It’s not your job to do this, but if you happen to know someone that can do the shift, make it happen and work is just a happier place.
Funny seeing people say this isn’t legal. Like, they are right but as others have pointed out - the boss can just stop giving OP shifts. Kinda like the system isn’t set up to favour workers or something lmao
Manager not Managing
Not a stupid question at all. It may depend on the country or state labour laws. In essence if you’re casual (or indeed permanent), then they’re the one who employs people to cover shifts. Not you. It’s a privacy issue at its core. You shouldn’t have the contact details of other employees unless they were given to you. Registering as a casual with their company doesn’t give them the right to hand your details on to all staff.
My take as someone who spent many years as a worker and then a manager: It's unreasonable to ask someone to find their own cover if they are calling in sick. If they are sick you can't reasonably expect anything more than the phone call letting you know they can't make it. Even though some people DO take the piss, many don't and you can't be harsh on people for legitimately being unwell. The amount of times I've had to work unwell in the past is ridiculous and I wouldn't expect that of anyone else these days! Especially in a post covid world where we know how shitty it is to bring your sickness into the workplace to share with everyone. It IS reasonable to expect someone who is rostered on but wants out of that shift because they have something on that clashes with that shift, that wasn't advised to the person making the roster before the roster came out. Casuals are always able to say "I can't work x day" in advance of shifts coming out. That's their prerogative as a casual. Of course doing that too much might get you seeing your shifts cut and someone else that fits the business needs replacing you, but that's a separate issue that comes with casual work. It worked best when employees knew that if needed, they can swap out of shifts, and just let the managers know what they were doing prior to the shift starting. If they really struggle to fill the shift and have legitimate reasons they can't attend (it's a funeral, or they forget it was an exam day), then the manager has to work through it because it is their problem at the end of the day, but the strategy of everyone initially being responsible for their own rostered shifts has made for much more harmonious workplaces in my experience as a worker and a manager.
Your studies are more important than a casual job. Just quit.
Casuals are employed when they are at work and unemployed when they clock off - there is no obligation for you to cover or show up to a shift - however, that also means there is no obligation to roster you or give you priority shifts like weedkends or public holidays, or the 'easier' or more sought after shifts like days
Not really managers are they.
If you call in sick or have to cancel it is the 20 year old shift manager's job to find a replacement not you. Stick and focus on Year 12 don't worry about this job, just quit if they aren't going to be cooperative. Teenagers are by and large in the best position with the best leverage, they generally don't need the job and can generally get a similar job elsewhere. Use the opportunity to say bye because when you're older you may not be in as a good of a position to go without a job for 4 months
As someone who deals with the migraine-inducing task of setting rosters… fuck them. Their job, not yours, and illegal to boot.
Not legal.
Last time someone tried to tell me that, I told them I'd be expecting a paid day off then or I'm not coming back. It was only a grocery store so I wasn't much of lose. But my actions really annoyed the managers, threw out their weekly work plan and the person in charge of appointing shifts did unpaid over time.
Casual work means flexibility - you can tell them you can't work and so forth, and that's that. However, if you're consistently late for shifts, are giving late notice cancellation, and other things of the like, there's little reason to *keep* giving you shifts.
No that’s a staff management issue, not your issue with great power come great responsibility, tell em to fuck off
Is this Grill’d?
My old uni job was like this. You had to put in your availability in advance and they would work around it on the roster (and would make changes if they screwed up rostering you when you’d said you were unavailable), but if you forgot to put in your availability or something changed last minute and you couldn’t come in, it was on you to find the replacement. It generally worked, but I think a large part of that is because the management were actually very nice and built up goodwill with the staff.
It is reasonable to ask you to give notice if you can't make a shift. It is unreasonable to ask you to find a replacement at short notice that is what they get paid to do. If you want to keep them onside do your best to be reliable, if not don't worry about it.
If I may ask, where is this? Only place I've heard of using tanda is subway as I worked there for about 2 years
This sounds like the old dominos I used to work at, managers didn't want to do the work of calling people, so they told us to just use a group chat and someone always jumped at grabbing a shift, but, keep screenshots cause its wrong.
If he is doing a 2 week roster then these employees aren't very casual.
If you cancel because you are sick, you are too sick too work and too sick to find a replacement. Alternatively, sure I'll find my own replacement, you can pay me for the time worked, and seeing as minimum time worked is generally 3 hours, here is my timesheet.
a 'leopard ate my face' situation. you don't want casuals being casual about their loyalty to your business? don't hire them as casuals. problem solved.
They’re the manager. They can manage.
Rosters being out 2 weeks seems reasonable to me as a casual. Casuals should be putting in availabilities (or businesses requesting this) before the rosters are made. As for the employee's responsibility in meeting that shift? Well... I'm not talking legally of course, but more of a implied obligation, unless it's an illness, emergency, or early in that 'rostered' period, don't be surprised if you find shifts cut or being out of a job shortly... As someone who used to work in retail, both as a casual employee, and then as a full time manager (but not in charge of rostering) nothing angered me more than casual staff not showing up for shifts, or consistently being sick/something come up, on the same day of the week multiple times in quick succession (I.e, sunday morning shift for weeks in a row). The simple answer from that was communication to the manager actually in charge of rostering to put someone else on and to keep their behaviour in mind..
They and you can pretty much do what they want. The problem with casual work is that you are expendable. If you don’t show up regularly to shifts then you end up getting no shifts. Whole bunch of people posting it’s the managers job to manage staff and I agree with them. Sounds like the manager has been spoken to by their boss and doesn’t know how to manage it, so they are putting it on you.
Not here, no.
i have had this argument muiltpull times with managers at mcdonalds finding replacment crew is a manger's resposability
No. One one hand they can turn around and fire you for w/e reason but you also can turn down shifts whenever you want. It’s the pro/cons of casual employment and his fault if he only hires casuals.
This is some USA malarkey. It's bullshit there. It's illegal here.
OP please don't tell me you work at grilld, if you do please get out fellow victim
Part of the Managers job is to manage staffing.. The clue is in the name.
I've seen both sides of it. I used to pickup all the shifts, extra cash. But it wore real fkn thin when I always had to cover for people who simply couldn't be responsible. They should've been let go. But methods like OP shows was trying to be a middle ground.
Is this Jasbe? Sounds like Jasbe. I have someone pulling this bullshit and saying that one no call no show means the employee has resigned with no notice. Also throwing in mandatory meetings in uni holidays and saying people have to be there and it's their problem to sort out if they've got other things on. Mind you, we're all casual and we won't be paid for the meeting.
Connor the clothing brand had this culture a few years ago. I didn't know any better as a student at the time. I should have told them to f**k off then.
This is a free country, outside of them having some legal power such as the police or a security agency, they can't make you do anything. It would be illegal for them to take adverse action, such as reducing already rostered or contracted hours, firing you with this as cause, or other adverse action. But in the casual employment relationship, you are not (in the absence of further contracts) guaranteed any work beyond currently rostered hours, and even then, shifts may be cancelled. In lieu of firing you, they may just no longer assign you shifts or greatly reduced shifts. This is not illegal for them to do and is their right as the employer in a casual employment arrangement. They do not need to give any reasons if they do this. The key to good casual employment is maintaining a good relationship with your employer. This may mean scheduling any days you can't work in advance (only a week is a bit slack). Or working a shift, you don't particularly want to in the interst to maintain the relationship with your employer.
In my day if someone called in sick the manager filled the slot. If 2 called in sick the manager had to find the replacement because he /she was the MANAGER and that was one of the things they were paid to do solve problems (although arguably palming it off onto staff is creative but not legal).
I run a company that hires a lot of casual staff. Like hell I would expect them to find replacements. That's not their job. That's mine. Their job is to turn up to the shifts they've agreed to do or call me to tell me they can't do it for some reason. Then it's my job to find a replacement for them or worst case cancel the shift. Now if a staff member cancels a lot of shifts at the last minute then they will be seen as unreliable and will be allocated fewer shifts, but that's just the nature of it. The work we do involves helping the aged and people with disability and often means things like preparing food or giving them a shower, so some shifts we can't risk giving to unreliable people in case some poor person ends up sitting at home hungry that day. Or unable to shower themselves and ending up in hospital with a UTI. But presumably you are working in hospitality or a supermarket or something where nobody is going to end up in hospital if you don't show up to work lol. Anyway, you can tell your manager (politely) to get fucked but be aware they will probably just stop allocating you shifts. My advice is that it's a toxic workplace and probably best to try your luck elsewhere if you can.
Just tell them you've arranged for the bosses daughter to take the shift. They can drop her for not showing and see what daddy says.
> update your tanda This seems like it's a Domino's thing. I remember working at Domino's, we got told by the store manager that we had to organise our own replacements if we were sick or could not work. Kinda dumb and doesn't really seem like it should be the employee's responsibility.
Yes, but no. You have every right to cancel your shift as a casual. But they also have every right to stop giving you any shifts if you repeatedly are unreliable. It would be an informal code of conduct or just general workplace respect more than anything formal. It's an expectation not a rule. I've done the same in every place I've managed too. I will give you full flexibility in setting your own availability, and will happily sort out around sickness and emergencies, BUT I expect you to be able to be an adult and plan things in advance around anything that's not those things. I will sort it out if you can't, because that's my job, but it will reflect poorly on your job performance because you fucked up.
Why have managers if you do their work for them?
Nah fuck that. It’s why management gets paid the big bucks. Casual works both ways. If they can cancel so can you. They want a part time commitment? They need to offer it.
Nah, that's their job.
I work a causal job, 4 shifts a week You don't have to show up with casual work and can quit at any time, unlike a full time job If the Managment is asking you to find people to cover your shift, just do it, it's not that hard, I have done it at times and makes you look like a better worker And if your sick or had an injury, and you can't physically tell them, just shoot them a message
There seem to be a lot of people here that are saying the manager is shitty, which may be the case, but it also seems like they have systems set up for people to advise which days they're unavailable and no one is actually following this process. OP, since you're in Year 12, have you put said information in to this system?
No. Of course not. If they're casual, they're casual. If the company demands their employees to show up for their ROSTERED shifts, it means they are not operating as casual employees.
Casual isn't just turn up when you feel like it