Tulwana and Another v City of Johannesburg (JA 59/15) [2016] ZALAC 85 (26 July 2016)

Tulwana and Another v City of Johannesburg (JA 59/15) [2016] ZALAC 85 (26 July 2016)

The court found that the 2006 collective agreement remained binding at the time the appellants' fixed term contracts expired, and the respondent's failure to renew or convert the contracts constituted an unfair dismissal under section 186(1) read with section 188(1) of the Labour Relations Act. The evidence did not establish that the dismissals were automatically unfair due to protected disclosures, as the causal link was not sufficiently proven and other employees in similar positions were also not reemployed. The first appellant's death rendered reinstatement impracticable, so compensation was awarded. The second appellant was entitled to reinstatement with full benefits. The Labour...

Citation
[2016] ZALAC 85
Parties
Appellant: Alan Tulwana; Appellant: Robert Wiebosch; Respondent: City of Johannesburg
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 July 2016
Case Number
JA 59/15
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld. Labour Court judgment set aside. Unfair dismissal found. Compensation and reinstatement ordered.
Judges
Davis, Musi, Murphy
Legal Topics
Fixed Term Contracts, Unfair Dismissal, Collective Agreements, Protected Disclosure, Remedies for Unfair Dismissal
Labour Law Civil Procedure Fixed Term Contracts Unfair Dismissal Collective Agreements Protected Disclosure Remedies for Unfair Dismissal

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

Parties

Alan Tulwana

Appellant

Robert Wiebosch

Appellant

City of Johannesburg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the non-renewal of the appellants' fixed term contracts constituted an unfair dismissal under the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the appellants had a reasonable expectation of renewal of their contracts based on the 2006 collective agreement.
  3. 3 Whether the dismissals were automatically unfair due to protected disclosures made by the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the 2006 collective agreement remained binding at the time the appellants' fixed term contracts expired, and the respondent's failure to renew or convert the contracts constituted an unfair dismissal under section 186(1) read with section 188(1) of the Labour Relations Act. The evidence did not establish that the dismissals were automatically unfair due to protected disclosures, as the causal link was not sufficiently proven and other employees in similar positions were also not reemployed. The first appellant's death rendered reinstatement impracticable, so compensation was awarded. The second appellant was entitled to reinstatement with full benefits. The Labour...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. Labour Court judgment set aside. Unfair dismissal found. Compensation and reinstatement ordered.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of Molahlehi J of 29 April 2015 is set aside and replaced with an order declaring the failure to renew the employment contracts of the appellants an unfair dismissal under s186(1) read with s188(1) of the Labour Relations Act.