Jones v Commissioner for Mediation, Conciliation and Arbitration and Others (C709/2018) [2021] ZALCCT 10 (6 January 2021)

Jones v Commissioner for Mediation, Conciliation and Arbitration and Others (C709/2018) [2021] ZALCCT 10 (6 January 2021)

The court held that the arbitrator was correct in finding that the applicant had not been dismissed within the meaning of section 186(1)(b)(i) of the LRA. While the applicant subjectively expected her contract to be renewed, she failed to establish objective grounds for such an expectation. The contract expressly...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] ZALCCT 10
Parties
Applicant: L K Jones; Respondent: Commission for Mediation, Conciliation & Arbitration; Respondent: Commissioner Allie Ryklief (N.O.); Respondent: Parliament of the RSA
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 January 2021
Case Number
C709/2018
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Labour Court Review of CCMA Arbitration Award
Outcome
The review application is dismissed.
Judges
Lagrange
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Fixed Term Contracts, Reasonable Expectation, Jurisdictional Review, Performance Management
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Fixed Term Contracts Reasonable Expectation Jurisdictional Review Performance Management

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L K Jones

Applicant

Commission for Mediation, Conciliation & Arbitration

Respondent

Commissioner Allie Ryklief (N.O.)

Respondent

Parliament of the RSA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Labour Court Review of CCMA Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was dismissed within the meaning of section 186(1)(b)(i) of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant had a reasonable expectation that her fixed term contract would be renewed.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator applied the correct legal standard in determining the existence of a dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the arbitrator was correct in finding that the applicant had not been dismissed within the meaning of section 186(1)(b)(i) of the LRA. While the applicant subjectively expected her contract to be renewed, she failed to establish objective grounds for such an expectation. The contract expressly stated it would terminate on a fixed date with no claim for continued employment, and there was no history of prior renewals. The draft human resources policy was not yet adopted and could not reasonably be relied upon. Performance issues and poor attendance further undermined any expectation of renewal. The court emphasized that section 186(1)(b)(i) does not extend to...

Court Disposition

The review application is dismissed.

Orders

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