She testified that the worker maintained 2-3 days per week from March 2024 onwards, which she considered systematic engagement.
Financial records showed the worker earned approximately $2,600 from June to September 2024, averaging 1-2 shifts per fortnight across locations.
However, payslip analysis revealed more consistent engagement than the roster records suggested, with the worker performing duties that included training, cleaning, and shift coverage across the business network.
Regularity versus systematic engagement disputed
The employer argued that employment was sporadic and non-systematic, pointing to gaps between work periods and irregular rostering patterns.
Management evidence suggested shifts were not rostered in advance, occurred at different times on different days, and sometimes involved month-long gaps followed by consecutive work periods.