Casual workers can still be dismissed during a period of engagement, and disputes often turn on whether the relationship was genuinely casual or had become regular, ongoing employment.
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
Casual workers can still be dismissed during a period of engagement, and disputes often turn on whether the relationship was genuinely casual or had become regular, ongoing employment.
The strict circumstances in which 8% pay-as-you-go holiday pay can lawfully be used for genuinely intermittent or irregular work and qualifying fixed-term employment.
![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 engaged by Queenstown Nursery for temporary plant work and were later selected to stop working, with the employer relying on weather and alleged comparative inefficiency. The case concerned whether the casual or short-assignment characterisation justified ending their work without a fair process.
Fiona Scott signed a casual agreement with Ritchies but in practice regularly drove urban bus routes. After disciplinary issues arose, the employer relied on the casual characterisation and later ended her work, raising questions about her real status and the justification for dismissal.
Kyle Horsefield sold cars for Eurocars under an arrangement labelled casual, but his work had the characteristics of ongoing employment. The employer later ended the relationship by text, raising both employment-status and dismissal-justification issues.
Ben Devine had historically held permanent nursing hours but Health New Zealand later relied on documents describing part of his work as casual and left him on an unpaid stand-down. The case concerned the real nature of the employment relationship and whether the employer could remove work and pay without a proper process.
Shenwei Zhang worked for Fat Dragon Restaurant Management under an arrangement the employer described as casual. After the relationship deteriorated, his work was ended through WeChat and he pursued dismissal, wage and holiday-pay claims.
Tammy Stevenson had worked regular cleaning hours for Mountain Chalets for years despite the employer describing her as casual. A dispute over guaranteed hours and a phone conversation then led her to claim dismissal and challenge the employer's treatment of her employment status and holiday entitlements.