The Industrial Magistrates Court of Western Australia (Court) has dismissed a claim brought by an employee (the claimant) engaged by a beekeeping and honey production business, who alleged he was entitled to unpaid annual leave and sick leave.

The claimant was employed by the respondent between October 2020 and January 2025, performing a range of duties including extracting honey, cleaning, maintenance, deliveries and general assistance with production. After his employment ended, the claimant sought over $13,000 for unpaid annual and sick leave, arguing that he was, and had always been, a part-time employee covered by the Food, Beverage and Tobacco Manufacturing Award 2010 (Food and Beverage Award).

The respondent denied the claim, maintaining that the claimant was at all times employed as a casual employee (and therefore not entitled to paid annual and sick leave) and that his employment was covered by the Pastoral Award 2020. On reviewing the claim, the respondent accepted that it had underpaid the claimant under the Pastoral Award, as a casual employee, and calculated a shortfall of $2,379.44 in wages and $256.69 in superannuation. Having regard to this admission, the Court made orders for payment of those amounts, with the balance of the claim proceeding to a hearing. The remaining issues for determination were: 1) which modern award applied to the claimant’s employment, and 2) whether the claimant was employed as a casual or part-time employee.

Award coverage 

The Court rejected the respondent’s position that the Pastoral Award (which covers farming and livestock work) applied. While the business involved beekeeping and the definition of “livestock” in that Award includes insects, the Court found that none of the relevant classifications for farm or livestock workers matched the work performed by the claimant. Instead, the claimant’s duties (such as extracting, handling, processing and packaging honey) were more closely aligned with food production activities. On that basis, the Court determined that the Food and Beverage Award was the most appropriate, classifying the claimant at the lowest level under that award.

Part time or casual employment 

The claimant argued that he worked regular hours, typically on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, and that there was an agreement he would work at least 30 hours per fortnight. However, after reviewing the timesheets, payroll records, text message exchanges and witness evidence, the Court found that this was not supported by the evidence and that the claimant’s account was not reliable.

Instead, the Court found that the claimant’s hours were highly variable, with differing start and finish times and no consistent pattern of work. While he often worked particular days, he also worked on other days or did not work at all. The evidence showed that he frequently informed the employer when he would not attend work, and that the employer either asked whether he was available for work or advised him when no work was required.

In these circumstances, the Court concluded that there was no firm commitment to ongoing or regular work. Rather, the arrangement operated on an “as needed” basis, in which work was offered based on the respondent’s requirements, and the claimant could choose whether to accept it. The Court also found that the employment was described by the parties as casual and that the hourly rate paid was consistent with casual employment, including a casual loading.

Accordingly, the Court determined that the claimant was a casual employee. As a result, he was not entitled to paid annual leave or paid personal (sick) leave under the National Employment Standards or the Food and Beverage Award, those entitlements being compensated by the casual loading.
While the Court observed that the respondent may have further underpaid the claimant by approximately $155.51 due to applying a casual rate under the incorrect award, the claim was ultimately dismissed. This was because the claimant’s case proceeded on the basis that he was a part-time employee entitled to paid leave, which the Court did not accept.

The full decision can be read here.