University of Cape Town v Auf der Heyde (CA11/00) [2001] ZALAC 5; [2001] 12 BLLR 1316 (LAC); (2001) 22 ILJ 2647 (LAC) (28 September 2001)

University of Cape Town v Auf der Heyde (CA11/00) [2001] ZALAC 5; [2001] 12 BLLR 1316 (LAC); (2001) 22 ILJ 2647 (LAC) (28 September 2001)

The court found that the respondent did not have a reasonable expectation that his fixed-term contract would be renewed or converted into a permanent appointment. The appellant made it clear from the outset that the contract was for three years, with only a possibility of extension, and explicitly stated that there was no commitment to permanent appointment. The evidence did not support the respondent's claim of a reasonable expectation, nor did the treatment of Drs Chibale and Naidoo create such an expectation. The appointments of Drs Chibale and Naidoo were based on merit and affirmative action considerations and did not constitute unfair discrimination or unfair labour practices. The...

Citation
[2001] ZALAC 5
Parties
Appellant: University of Cape Town; Respondent: Thomas Auf der Heyde
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 September 2001
Case Number
CA11/00
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment; Cross Appeal by Respondent
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed; Labour Court order set aside; respondent's claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
Du Plessis, Zondo, Davis
Legal Topics
Fixed Term Contracts, Reasonable Expectation of Renewal, Unfair Labour Practice, Affirmative Action, Discrimination, Costs Order
Labour Law Civil Procedure Fixed Term Contracts Reasonable Expectation of Renewal Unfair Labour Practice Affirmative Action Discrimination Costs Order

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

University of Cape Town

Appellant

Thomas Auf der Heyde

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment; Cross Appeal by Respondent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was dismissed within the meaning of section 186(b) of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent had a reasonable expectation of renewal or permanent appointment.
  3. 3 Whether the appointments of Drs Chibale and Naidoo constituted unfair labour practices or unfair discrimination.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent did not have a reasonable expectation that his fixed-term contract would be renewed or converted into a permanent appointment. The appellant made it clear from the outset that the contract was for three years, with only a possibility of extension, and explicitly stated that there was no commitment to permanent appointment. The evidence did not support the respondent's claim of a reasonable expectation, nor did the treatment of Drs Chibale and Naidoo create such an expectation. The appointments of Drs Chibale and Naidoo were based on merit and affirmative action considerations and did not constitute unfair discrimination or unfair labour practices. The...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed; Labour Court order set aside; respondent's claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The cross appeal is dismissed.