“Casual” cleaner was a permanent part-time employee, Employment Court confirms
The Employment Court in Christchurch recently dismissed an attempt by Da Hai Investment Ltd to overturn a finding that a cleaner it treated as casual was in fact a permanent part-time employee. The decision, Da Hai Investment Ltd v Lebreton [2026] NZEmpC 244, was issued on 12 October 2026.
Background
The worker, who was engaged as a housekeeper and cleaner in February 2022 raised a personal grievance with the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) after the relationship ended in May 2023 claiming she had been unjustifiably dismissed as she was a permanent part-time employee not a casual at all although no employment agreement was ever signed.
The ERA identified the central question as whether the arrangement was genuinely casual or permanent part-time. It found she worked regular hours, made herself reliably available, and was given work in a way that created a reasonable expectation of ongoing employment. A new manager gave evidence that she did not work on an on-call basis. The worker said she expected regular hours.
This type of challenge is not unusual, and as expected the ERA looks at all facets of the employment relationship, not just how either particular party might label it. The ERA concurred with the employee that it was substantively a permanent arrangement in nature and awarded $21,113 in her favour.
Employment Court challenge
Da Hai challenged the determination of the ERA in the Employment Court. The employer relied heavily on discussions in August 2022 about guaranteed minimum hours, when the worker declined a tentative offer to set a minimum and or to sign an employment agreement. It argued that nothing had changed after that point. The Court found the Authority had treated this evidence cautiously. Da Hai had never produced a draft agreement, and it continued to treat the arrangement as casual despite knowing that a written agreement was legally required.
The Court’s reasoning
The Court cited the Jinkinson v Oceana Gold (NZ) Ltd approach, which asks whether mutual obligations continue between periods of work. While the label on a contract is relevant it is not controlling. The Court also confirmed that no single event is needed to convert a casual arrangement into a permanent one. A change in the nature of the relationship can emerge from an accumulated pattern of conduct. It found the ERA had applied settled law correctly and the decision stood in the employee’s favour including now the worker’s legal costs too.
Practical takeaway for employers
Using a regular roster, consistent hours and a pattern of ongoing work can make an arrangement permanent whatever the paperwork says. Employers who engage casuals should keep a compliant written agreement in place and review actual working patterns regularly.