For the first time, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) has ordered an employer to treat a casual employee as a part-time employee under the casual employee choice provisions in the National Employment Standards (NES). In Gregory Baker v Macquarie University[1], the University must treat a long-serving casual computing teacher as a 0.1 FTE part-time employee. The decision is the first to consider the casual employment provisions introduced in 2024, and the lessons apply well beyond universities.
What Happened
Mr Baker had taught in the School of Computing since 2023, working an estimated 900 hours in 2025 (around 17 hours per week). In November 2025, he notified the University that his employment was no longer casual. The University refused, arguing that its enterprise agreement did not permit a part-time employee to perform teaching work only.[2]
Commissioner Crawford disagreed. Although engagements were set semester by semester, the University relied on Mr Baker performing regular and scheduled work more than would normally be the case with a casual, his subject was a core part of the school, and permanent staff performed the same teaching work. A pattern of work can be regular without being uniform. On balance, the relationship was not characterised by an absence of a firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work – it looked more like recurring fixed-term part-time employment than genuine casual employment.[3]
Mr Baker was ordered to be treated as a 0.1 FTE part-time employee: 3.5 hours per week, or 182 hours averaged over 12 months, taking effect 28 days after the decision.[4]
Key Takeaways for Employers
- You cannot fix the problem after the notification arrives. The FWC must disregard anything the employer or employee does after the notification is given. Evidence that Mr Baker’s teaching arrangements changed later was ignored entirely. Reducing hours or altering rosters in response to a notification will not assist – the assessment is frozen at the notification date.[5]
- Your enterprise agreement will not shield you. A clause preventing an employee from converting is inconsistent with the NES and has no effect to that extent. Review classification, job family and part-time clauses now and address them in bargaining rather than in arbitration.[6]
- Seasonal and cyclical work is not automatically casual. Semester, term, harvest and peak-season patterns can still be “regular”. Employers in education, agriculture, hospitality, tourism and retail should not assume that a break between engagement periods preserves casual status.
- Diarise the 21 days. You must consult the employee and provide a written response to their notification within 21 days, with reasons if you refuse. A late or unreasoned response is an obvious starting point for a dispute.[7]
- Operational grounds must be genuine and evidenced. Pointing to an enterprise agreement clause is not enough. You need evidence of substantial change to how work is organised, or significant operational impact.[8]
- Check the cost before you resist. The Commissioner noted the order may actually save the University money, because casual rates were higher than the part-time rates in the agreement. Conversion is not always the more expensive outcome.[9]
This is a first-instance decision on provisions that had not previously been considered, and the Commissioner acknowledged some uncertainty in how they interact. The reasoning may be tested on appeal or in later cases, but employers should not wait for that to review their casual arrangements.[10]
[1] [2026] FWC 3054.
[2] As above [1], [23]–[27], [35].
[3] As above [32]-[33].
[4] As above [42], [50]; Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 66MA(4)(b).
[5] As above [22]; Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 66MA(5)(b).
[6] As above [36]–[38], Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 55, 56; Paper Australia Pty Ltd v May [2025] FWCFB 224 [67].
[7] Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 66AAB, 66AAC.
[8] Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 66AAC(4)(b), 66AAC(5).
[9] [2026] FWC 3054, [45].
[10] As above, [4], [18]–[21].
