Arendse v Barloworld Ltd (C30/2011) [2014] ZALCCT 72 (19 May 2014)

Arendse v Barloworld Ltd (C30/2011) [2014] ZALCCT 72 (19 May 2014)

The court found that the applicant failed to prove a reasonable expectation of renewal of his fixed term contract. The repeated renewals were contextualized by the respondent's legitimate operational reasons for using fixed term contracts, namely the planned outsourcing to owner drivers. The evidence did not support the applicant's claim of assurances for permanent employment, and the alleged work performed after contract expiry was neither authorized nor recorded. The applicant did not discharge the onus to show that he was dismissed as defined in section 186(1)(b) of the LRA. Consequently, the application for reinstatement failed.

Citation
[2014] ZALCCT 72
Parties
Applicant: Albert Arendse; Respondent: Barloworld Ltd
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 May 2014
Case Number
C30/2011
Procedural Posture
Labour Dismissal Application / Trial
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Steenkamp
Legal Topics
Fixed Term Contracts, Reasonable Expectation, Dismissal Definition, Section 186 1 B, Reinstatement, Onus of Proof
Labour Law Fixed Term Contracts Reasonable Expectation Dismissal Definition Section 186 1 B Reinstatement Onus of Proof

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Albert Arendse

Applicant

Barloworld Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Dismissal Application / Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was dismissed as contemplated in section 186(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant had a reasonable expectation of renewal of his fixed term contract.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was tacitly re-employed on an indefinite basis after the expiry of his contract.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to prove a reasonable expectation of renewal of his fixed term contract. The repeated renewals were contextualized by the respondent's legitimate operational reasons for using fixed term contracts, namely the planned outsourcing to owner drivers. The evidence did not support the applicant's claim of assurances for permanent employment, and the alleged work performed after contract expiry was neither authorized nor recorded. The applicant did not discharge the onus to show that he was dismissed as defined in section 186(1)(b) of the LRA. Consequently, the application for reinstatement failed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.