Roster Compliance at a Busy Retail Store
A retail store employs 12 casual staff and 3 permanent part-timers. The store trades 9am–6pm, seven days. The manager has built a roster where two casuals work 38 hours each per week, one casual has worked 14 consecutive days, and a 17-year-old casual is rostered alone from 5pm to 6pm on Sundays. The store's award requires a 30-minute unpaid break after 5 hours, a minimum 10-hour gap between shifts, and no sole-worker shifts for staff under 18. The manager says the roster is fine because 'everyone agreed to it' and labour cost is 2% under budget.
1. Identify each compliance problem in the roster and explain why 'everyone agreed' does not resolve them.
Read the worked answer
Problems:
- Two casuals at 38 hours/week - casuals are engaged on an irregular basis; rostering them at full-time hours risks the arrangement being reclassified as permanent, and may breach the award's casual conversion or maximum-hours provisions.
- 14 consecutive days - breaches the minimum break/rest requirements; most awards require a rest period between blocks of work. Even without a specific clause, it is a fatigue and WHS risk.
- 17-year-old alone 5–6pm Sunday - directly breaches the no-sole-worker rule for under-18s.
- Breaks - any shift over 5 hours without a recorded 30-minute unpaid break breaches the award.
- 10-hour gap - check whether any staff close at 6pm and open at 9am the next day; that is a 15-hour gap so likely fine, but weekend double shifts should be checked.
Why 'everyone agreed' fails: employment entitlements are statutory minimums. A worker cannot contract out of them, and a casual's agreement does not make an unlawful roster lawful. Consent is not a defence to an award breach - the employer carries the legal obligation regardless.
2. The manager argues the roster saves money. Assess that claim and recommend how the store should fix the roster while protecting its labour-cost target.
Read the worked answer
Assessing the savings claim: The 2% under-budget figure is not a true saving. Underpayments and award breaches expose the store to back-pay claims, penalties, and reputational damage that dwarf a 2% labour saving. The 38-hour casuals also create a contingent liability: if reclassified as permanent, the store owes leave accruals and notice. So the apparent saving is an unrecognised cost.
Fixes:
- Cap casual hours below full-time thresholds, or convert those two staff to permanent part-time with proper leave.
- Break the 14-day run with rostered days off to restore rest periods.
- Pair the 17-year-old with an adult for the Sunday 5–6pm shift, or move them to an earlier shift.
- Schedule the mandated 30-minute breaks and record them.
- Review the 10-hour gap across all shifts.
Protecting the labour target: spread hours across more casuals to avoid overtime and conversion triggers; use the permanent part-timers for predictable peak blocks; and audit the roster against the award before publishing. Compliance and cost control are compatible if hours are distributed deliberately rather than concentrated.