Automated Summary
Key Facts
The applicant, a lecturer in the Department of Chemistry, held three successive fixed-term contracts with the second respondent from 1991 to 1998. She claimed a legitimate expectation of contract renewal due to prior reappointments, South African citizenship obtained in December 1998, and institutional assurances. The arbitrator found no unfair dismissal or labour practice, noting her contracts were never automatically renewed and required reapplication through advertised processes. The court upheld the award, emphasizing the arbitrator's factual conclusions about the contract terms and the absence of automatic renewal.
Issues
- The court examined whether the applicant's fixed-term contract, which was re-advertised and re-appointed through interviews each time, could create a legitimate expectation of renewal under section 186(b) of the Labour Relations Act. The arbitrator found no such expectation existed because the contracts were not automatically renewed, and the court upheld this decision, emphasizing that re-appointment via interview does not equate to automatic renewal.
- The applicant argued the arbitrator erred in interpreting the council's policy on advertising re-appointments. The court clarified that the arbitrator's interpretation, even if incorrect, was a factual conclusion not subject to review under section 145 of the LRA and did not constitute gross irregularity.
- The applicant contended the dismissal date was 9 December 1998, when she received the notice, but the arbitrator accepted 31 December 1998 as the contract's expiry. The court upheld this, explaining the applicant's referral timing was inconsistent with the 9 December date, and the 15 October notice implied non-renewal.
- The applicant argued the arbitrator erred by requiring prior renewals for a legitimate expectation, citing the Dierkes case. The court found the arbitrator correctly applied the precedents, noting that even if there was an error, it did not affect the outcome since the applicant's contract was not renewed and she was unsuitable in the final interview.
- The applicant claimed her contract termination was unfair dismissal, arguing she had a reasonable expectation of renewal based on factors like citizenship, performance, and prior appointments. The arbitrator and court rejected this, noting the contract was not renewed, and interviews were conducted each time, which negated the claim of unfair dismissal under the specified legal provisions.
Holdings
- The court concluded that the first respondent's interpretation of the council policy on advertising posts was a factual determination not subject to review, and that the applicant's focus on the 9 December 1998 letter as the dismissal date was legally unsound.
- The court upheld the arbitrator's award, finding that the applicant's fixed-term contract was not automatically renewed and that the first respondent correctly applied the principle of legitimate expectation. The court dismissed the application to review the award with costs.
- The court determined that the first respondent did not misinterpret the Dierkes case, as the applicant's contract had not been previously renewed, and even if there was an error in legal reasoning, it did not affect the arbitration outcome.
Remedies
The application to review and set aside the arbitration award was dismissed with costs.
Legal Principles
The court applied the principle of legitimate expectation in the context of fixed-term contract renewals under section 186(b) of the Labour Relations Act. It determined that an employee's legitimate expectation for renewal arises only when previous contracts have been renewed, not when reappointed after interviews. The applicant's belief in entitlement to renewal based on citizenship and prior reappointments was rejected as insufficient to establish a legitimate expectation.
Precedent Name
- County Fair Foods (Pty) Ltd v CCMA & Others
- Dierkes v University of South Africa
- Carephone (Pty) Ltd v Marcus NO & Others
- Lekota v First National Bank of SA LTD
- McInnes v Technokon Natal
Cited Statute
Labour Relations Act
Judge Name
D Pillay
Passage Text
- The first respondent was applying the facts of the Dierkes' case to this case. In Dierkes' case the employee's previous contracts with the respondent had been renewed. Despite this, Oosthuizen, A J had found that nothing had been said to Dierkes to give rise to a reasonable expectation of renewal.
- He awarded that the applicant had not been dismissed in terms of section 186(b) of the Labour Relations Act. He found that the legitimate expectation contemplated in section 186(b) applies only when a fixed term contract has been previously renewed: it did not apply in the case where the applicant had been previously re-appointed after being interviewed.