[48] Casual employees do not accrue paid leave and are not entitled to it. The Respondent would probably have been aware that the Applicant was disputing her dismissal as the unfair dismissal application was filed on 14 March. I am inclined to the view that Ms Wang's offer of additional payment to the Applicant as a casual employee and a period of 'paid leave', and the potential offer of other future employment with another business at the end of that period of 'leave' were attempts to resolve the dispute about the earlier dismissal, rather than either an offer to rescind the termination, or to attempt to maintain a purported ongoing casual employment relationship.
[49] The Applicant gave oral evidence that the only reason that she completed the leave form was because she needed the money to pay bills and she hadn't been looking for another job because she had agreed to do the additional casual shifts as requested by Dream Nareekul to assist Dream Nareekul with her visa application. The Applicant said she believed that if she did not enter the leave application into the computer as Ms Wang had wanted, she would not be paid the money.
[50] The Applicant said the only drop box options were leave with pay or leave without pay. The Applicant also said she had just hired three new staff and trained them and was embarrassed that she had been dismissed and did not want people to know.
[51] I accept this explanation and do not regard the leave application as persuasive that the casual employment relation was not terminated on 13 March. As stated above already, I regard the casual engagement after the communication of her termination on 13 March as a separate casual engagement on those dates. On that basis there was a termination of employment and there is jurisdiction to determine whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.
[52] Even if I am wrong in that view, and the employment relationship remained on foot until 23 March, or even until early April on the basis that the additional payment could be regarded as having the effect of extending the employment relationship, it remains the case that a termination of employment was communicated on 13 March and the evidence supports a conclusion that the Respondent never offered to rescind the termination, and/or any evidence to suggest an offer to rescind was ever accepted by the Applicant.
[53] If it were to be the case that the termination did not have effect until after the application was filed, then the application would have been filed before the termination had occurred. That would amount to an irregularity in the form or manner in which the application was made. On the particular facts of this case, if that were the case it would be appropriate to exercise power under s.586(b) to waive that irregularity, however for the reasons set out above in my view it is unnecessary to do so as the termination of the casual employment relationship had effect before the application was filed.
[54] I am also not satisfied on the basis of the evidence that a formal offer of an actual position was ever made to the Applicant by Ms Wang on 20 March 2022. It appears from the evidence that Ms Wang was referring to a potential new role which could exist in the future. This was not a firm offer of employment. In any event, even if it could have been regarded as a firm offer which I reject, it was not an offer of ongoing employment, it would be an offer for a new contract of employment. In the absence of any evidence from the Respondent it appeared to be a discussion about a potential offer to work in an enterprise where the Respondent would
