If a casual employee is unfairly dismissed by their employer during a period of casual engagement, the employee can bring an unjustified dismissal personal grievance. "Casual" does not mean "no rights".
Casual employees have the same rights as permanent employees. The Employment Relations Act 2000 does not distinguish a casual employee from a permanent employee which can cause confusion.
"Casual employment" is about the reality of the working relationship, not the label in the agreement. Casual employees still have the same minimum rights as permanent employees. The main difference is usually the work pattern - casual work is genuinely irregular and offered as needed.
Problems arise when an employer calls someone "casual" but in practice the person works regular shifts, is expected to be available, or is treated like a permanent part time employee. In those situations, the ERA may treat the relationship as ongoing employment, with the usual obligations around process, notice, holidays, and dismissal justification.
Casual employees are still employees. Minimum rights generally include:
The biggest legal risk is "casual in name only". Common indicators of an ongoing employment relationship include:
If the relationship has become ongoing, then reducing hours or ending the work may be treated as a termination that must be justified and procedurally fair. That is where employers get exposed to personal grievance claims.
In genuine casual work, a shift can end at the end of the shift and there may be no further shifts offered. But where work is regular and ongoing in reality, ending it without a fair process can become an unjustified dismissal claim.
If you want true casual arrangements, document and run them like true casual arrangements:
If you have been taken off the roster, dismissed from casual work, or you are unsure whether your "casual" role is really casual,
the fastest way is to submit the case form with your roster history, key documents, and a short timeline.
Employee Case Form
If a casual employee is unfairly dismissed by their employer during a period of casual engagement, the employee can bring an unjustified dismissal personal grievance. "Casual" does not mean "no rights".
Strict conditions must be met for an employer to pay an employee pay-as-you-go holiday pay in casual employment and fixed-term employment placements that exceed 12 months.
![Sidney Yu and Jing Tham v Queenstown Nursery Limited [2026] NZERA 446 - casual employment, fixed assignment and unjustified dismissal](/Images/site/EmploymentAdvocatesAucklandCard.jpg)
Sidney Yu and Jing Tham were working holiday visa holders engaged by Queenstown Nursery Limited as casual nursery assistants. The employer argued their work was offered only day by day and could simply stop being offered. The ERA disagreed. An email promising Monday to Wednesday work for at least the next three weeks created an assignment extending to 23 April 2025. When QNL ended the work on 15 April, it said the reason was weather, but later acknowledged the applicants had been selected because they were considered less efficient. The Authority found no fair process, no evidence of substantive justification, and a breach of good faith. Each applicant was awarded $848 gross for four lost working days, including Easter Monday as an otherwise working day, and $2,000 compensation...
Fiona Scott was employed by Ritchies Transport Holdings Limited on a casual agreement, but the ERA found the real nature of the relationship had evolved into permanent employment. After a route deviation for a toilet break, two scheduled shifts were removed and no further shifts were offered. The ERA found this amounted to unjustified dismissal and ordered $10,000 compensation and $12,870 gross lost wages...
Eurocars labelled a new car salesperson as casual and then texted him that his casual employment was terminated because he was busy with a lawyer and physio. The ERA found the real relationship was permanent on an as-required basis, the text was a summary dismissal, and the employer had no fair process or substantive justification...
A registered nurse on the West Coast was treated as a casual after moving between roles and locations. While a dispute about his status was still unresolved, Health NZ stood him down to investigate clinical practice concerns and stopped paying him after a short period. The ERA held the real...
A long-term waiter was labelled 'casual as required' but worked regular rosters for years. When shifts stopped, he was told by WeChat, 'You don't need to come anymore'. The ERA found he was a permanent employee and the dismissal was unjustified. Orders: $5,686.33 lost wages (reimbursement),...
ERA held the employee was not unequivocally dismissed after a disputed phone call about guaranteed hours, so the unjustified dismissal claim failed. But the employer's handling of her hours concerns and its reliance on a 'casual' label was unfair and caused unjustified disadvantage. The Authority found the relationship had become permanent part-time, ordered $8,000 compensation, and required outstanding holiday pay for the entire employment to be calculated and paid.