Transnet t/a Transnet Freight Rail v NUMSA obo Manku and Others (PA11/2019) [2021] ZALAC 17; (2021) 42 ILJ 1948 (LAC); [2021] 10 BLLR 1004 (LAC) (29 June 2021)

Transnet t/a Transnet Freight Rail v NUMSA obo Manku and Others (PA11/2019) [2021] ZALAC 17; (2021) 42 ILJ 1948 (LAC); [2021] 10 BLLR 1004 (LAC) (29 June 2021)

The respondents failed to discharge the onus of proving a reasonable expectation of renewal of their fixed-term contracts. Their own conduct and statements indicated that they did not expect renewal but considered themselves permanently employed, which is fatal to their claim. The arbitrator erred in finding that...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] ZALAC 17
Parties
Appellant: Transnet t/a Transnet Freight Rail; Respondent: NUMSA on behalf of Zamile Manku; Respondent: NUMSA on behalf of Archie Botile; Respondent: Transnet Bargaining Council; Respondent: Naledi Burwana-Bisiwe N.O.
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 June 2021
Case Number
PA11/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment Dismissing Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Appeal upheld; Labour Court order set aside and substituted with a finding that the bargaining council lacked jurisdiction as no dismissal was proved.
Judges
Davis JA, Coppin JA, Savage AJA
Legal Topics
Fixed Term Contracts, Reasonable Expectation of Renewal, Jurisdiction of Bargaining Council, Unfair Dismissal, Collective Agreements
Labour Law Fixed Term Contracts Reasonable Expectation of Renewal Jurisdiction of Bargaining Council Unfair Dismissal Collective Agreements

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Transnet t/a Transnet Freight Rail

Appellant

NUMSA on behalf of Zamile Manku

Respondent

NUMSA on behalf of Archie Botile

Respondent

Transnet Bargaining Council

Respondent

Naledi Burwana-Bisiwe N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment Dismissing Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the respondents prove that they were dismissed in terms of section 186(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act?
  2. 2 Did the bargaining council have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute?
  3. 3 Was the arbitrator's finding of unfair dismissal objectively justifiable?

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents failed to discharge the onus of proving a reasonable expectation of renewal of their fixed-term contracts. Their own conduct and statements indicated that they did not expect renewal but considered themselves permanently employed, which is fatal to their claim. The arbitrator erred in finding that dismissal was proved under section 186(1)(b), and the Labour Court incorrectly found that the bargaining council had jurisdiction. The facts did not establish a dismissal, and thus the bargaining council lacked jurisdiction to determine the dispute.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; Labour Court order set aside and substituted with a finding that the bargaining council lacked jurisdiction as no dismissal was proved.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The order of the Labour Court is set aside and replaced with: 1. The review application succeeds. 2. The arbitration award is set aside and substituted with a finding that the Transnet Bargaining Council lacks jurisdiction to determine the dispute as the employees failed to prove a dismissal in terms of section...