Site icon Talent 360 Jobs

Beware the use of limited duration contracts

BY Ivan Israelstam, Chief Executive of Labour Law Management Consulting. He may be contacted on (011) 888 7944 or 082 852 2973 or on e-mail address: ivan@labourlawadvice.co.za. Go to: Labour Law

Where the job itself is permanent it is dangerous to employ staff on anything but a permanent contract. This is firstly because the Labour Relations Act provides for fixed-term employees to have a reasonable expectation of renewal of their contracts at the expiry date. Secondly, case law has gradually narrowed those circumstances under which an employment agreement can legitimately be accepted as a limited duration contract.

In the case of NUMSA obo Majoro and others vs Purple Moss 1309 t/a Kopano Thermal Insulation (2008, 4 BALR 342) the six employees of Purple Moss, the labour broker, were placed at a client on limited duration contracts. After a strike the client informed the labour broker that it no longer required the services of the six labour broker employees. The labour broker therefore gave its six employees notice invoking a clause in the employment contract effectively allowing the contract to terminate automatically when the client no longer required the services of the worker.

The trade union alleged that these terminations were unfair because:

The employer contended that the termination constituted not a dismissal but an agreed termination of a contract as a result of a circumstance envisaged at the outset in the employment contract. Those circumstances were that the client had decided that it no longer required the services of the employees.

The arbitrator assigned by the Metal and Engineering Industry Bargaining Council (MEIBC) found as follows:

However, the arbitrator goes on to state that it is not right for employment contracts to contain agreements as to the end of the contract unless the end date is specified in the contract. She argues that this reduces the employment security of the employee who, due to the uncertainty as to the end date of the employment, is unable to manage his/her financial affairs properly or to know whether to seek alternative employment or not.

The arbitrator deemed the limited duration clauses in the employees’ contracts to be invalid. She deemed the employees to have been employed permanently and deemed the termination of their employment to be unfair! This finding followed on a similar decision made by the Labour Court in the case of SACCAWU and others vs Primeserv (2007, 1 BLLR 78). The arbitrator in the Purple Moss case found the dismissals to be unfair and ordered the employer to pay each employee compensation equal to 12 months remuneration.

The key finding of the arbitrator was that, where a limited duration contract does not specify an end date, the employees are deemed to be permanent.

In the light of the above employers need to:

To book for our 18 October course on COMBATTING WORKPLACE ABSENTEEISM please contact Ronni on ronni@labourlawadvice.co.za or 084 521 7492