Owen and Others v Department of Health, KZN (D492/06) [2014] ZALCD 45 (26 November 2008)

Owen and Others v Department of Health, KZN (D492/06) [2014] ZALCD 45 (26 November 2008)

The court found that the applicants' employment continued beyond the expiry of the fixed term contract without any express or implied agreement limiting the duration to a further six months. The Department's conduct, including giving one month's notice, was inconsistent with the existence of a fixed term contract terminating by effluxion of time. The applicants were therefore dismissed within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act. The Department failed to establish any substantive operational need for the dismissals and did not comply with the procedural requirements of section 189, including consultation and severance pay. The dismissals were both substantively and procedurally unfair....

Citation
[2014] ZALCD 45
Parties
Applicant: Terence Alec Owen; Applicant: Johannes Erenst Owen; Applicant: Jean Pierre Pellissier; Respondent: Department of Health, KZN
Court
Labour Court Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 November 2008
Case Number
D492/06
Procedural Posture
Labour Litigation / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Applicants succeeded; dismissals found substantively and procedurally unfair.
Judges
A van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Dismissal, Fixed Term Contracts, Operational Requirements, Procedural Fairness, Compensation, Severance Pay
Labour Law Dismissal Fixed Term Contracts Operational Requirements Procedural Fairness Compensation Severance Pay

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Terence Alec Owen

Applicant

Johannes Erenst Owen

Applicant

Jean Pierre Pellissier

Applicant

Department of Health, KZN

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Litigation / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants were dismissed within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the dismissals were substantively and procedurally fair under section 189 of the Labour Relations Act.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to compensation and severance pay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants' employment continued beyond the expiry of the fixed term contract without any express or implied agreement limiting the duration to a further six months. The Department's conduct, including giving one month's notice, was inconsistent with the existence of a fixed term contract terminating by effluxion of time. The applicants were therefore dismissed within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act. The Department failed to establish any substantive operational need for the dismissals and did not comply with the procedural requirements of section 189, including consultation and severance pay. The dismissals were both substantively and procedurally unfair....

Court Disposition

Applicants succeeded; dismissals found substantively and procedurally unfair.

Orders

  • The applicants were dismissed by the respondent.
  • The applicants' dismissal was substantively and procedurally unfair.