PSES CAR 001293 WC
PSES CAR 001293 WC
Award Date:
28 September 1998
Case Number: PSES CAR 001293 WC
Province: Eastern Cape
Applicant: LIEDEMAN (SADTU)
Respondent: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WC
Issue: Unfair Dismissal - Constructive Dismissal
Venue: CAPE TOWN
Award Date: 28 September 1998
Arbitrator: D WOOLFREY
EDUCATION LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL
CASE NUMBER : PSES car 001293
In the arbitration between:
LIEDEMAN APPLICANT
and
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WC RESPONDENT
ARBITRATOR’S AWARD
1 . HEARING AND REPRESENTATION
The arbitration hearing was held at the offices of the Wesstern Cape Education Department on 8 September 1998. The grievant, Mr R Liedeman, by Mr William Coetzee of the union, and the WCED by Mr K Pietersen and Mr S Faker.
2 . ISSUES
I was asked to decide whether the WCED had acted properly in declining to grant permanent status to liedeman under Resolution 3/1996.
3 .FACTS
3.1 Most of the facts were common cause, the dispute really turning on the applicatiion of the facts to the law.
3.2 On 1 June 1995 Liederman commenced employment with the WCED as a substitute teacher at Liebenberg Primary School. He held this position until 31 October 1995. On 1 July 1996 he was appointed as a subdtitute teacher at Rygersdal Primary, which is where he was teaching at all times relevant to this dispute. He was appointed in place of Hollyoway who was on vacation leave at the time, Holloway took a voluntary severance package on 30 September 1996, whereafter Liedeman because a temporary teacher in a substantive vacant post.
3.3 In and during November 1996, Liedeman and two colleagues (Henn and Jaffer ) approached the School Principal, Mr Danny Pietersen, to inquire about the possibility of thier status being changed from temporary to permanent Pietersen informed the three teachers that he wanted all three of them to be granted permanent status, and would take the necessary steps to ensure this. He also informed Liedeman that he did not intend advertising the post held by occupiedby Liedeman as he was afraid that an outsider might apply and be granted the post. On being told this Liedeman felt assured of gaining permanent status.
3.4 In July 1997 Pietersen applied to thw WCED for permanent status for Liedeman, Henn and Jaffer. The WCED referred the application to Provinicial Task Team which had been established to consider all applications for permanent status, and would take the necessary steps to ensure this. He also informed Liedeman that he did not intend advertising the post held by occupied by Liedeman as he was afraid that an outsider might apply and be granted the post. On being told this Liedeman felt assured of gaining permanent status.
3.5 In July 1997 Pietersen applied to the WCED for permanent status for Liedeman, Henn and Jaffer. The WCED referred the application to the Provincial Task Team which had been established to consider all application for permanent status. In a letter dated 1 October 1997 and addressed to the Assistant Director: Personnel in the WCED, the Task Team granted Liedeman permanent status, Was Liedeman employed on a fixed-term contract?
3.6 Towards the end of the proceedings, Mr Coetzee introduced a new argument, namely, that Liedeman was not informed that he was on fixed term contracts, and accordingly that he should be treated as in indefinite period employee. Mr Faker testified that Liedeman was employed on a series of three-monthly contracts, the last which expired in December 1997.
3.7 It was not disputed by Mr Coetzee that Liedeman was, in fact, employed on a series of fixed-term contracts. His argument was that Liedeman was never informed of this. But even if Liedeman was not informed of the exact duration of each contract (which I do not intend deciding) Liedeman was manifestly aware of the limited duration of his contract otherwise he would not have applied for permanent status. I do not intend deciding whether there was a reasonable expectation of renewal of the fixed-term contract and hence a dismissal within the meaning of the LRA, as this question was not included in my terms of reference and was not adequately canvassed during these proceedings.
4 . CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, I find that the WCED did not act wrongfully or unfairly in failing to grant Liedeman permanent status. Consequently, no award is made.
DATE OF AWARD 28 SEPTEMBER 1998
DAVID WOOLFREY
EDUCATION LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL
ARBITRATION AWARD
CASE NUMBER PSES CAR 001293 WC
APPLICANT LIEDEMAN (SADTU)
RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WC
NATURE CONTRACT / APPOINTMENT
ARBITRATOR D WOOLFREY
DATE OF ARBITRATION 8 SEPTEMBER 1998
VENUE CAPE TOWN
REPRESENTATION:
APPLICANT MR W COETZEE (SADTU)
RESPONDENT MR K PIETERSEN & MR S FAKE
AWARD:
For the above reasons, I find that the WCED did not act wrongfully or unfairly in failing to grant Liedeman permanent status. Consequently, no award is made.
DATE OF AWARD 28 SEPTEMBER 1998
Province: Eastern Cape
Applicant: LIEDEMAN (SADTU)
Respondent: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WC
Issue: Unfair Dismissal - Constructive Dismissal
Venue: CAPE TOWN
Award Date: 28 September 1998
Arbitrator: D WOOLFREY
EDUCATION LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL
CASE NUMBER : PSES car 001293
In the arbitration between:
LIEDEMAN APPLICANT
and
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WC RESPONDENT
ARBITRATOR’S AWARD
1 . HEARING AND REPRESENTATION
The arbitration hearing was held at the offices of the Wesstern Cape Education Department on 8 September 1998. The grievant, Mr R Liedeman, by Mr William Coetzee of the union, and the WCED by Mr K Pietersen and Mr S Faker.
2 . ISSUES
I was asked to decide whether the WCED had acted properly in declining to grant permanent status to liedeman under Resolution 3/1996.
3 .FACTS
3.1 Most of the facts were common cause, the dispute really turning on the applicatiion of the facts to the law.
3.2 On 1 June 1995 Liederman commenced employment with the WCED as a substitute teacher at Liebenberg Primary School. He held this position until 31 October 1995. On 1 July 1996 he was appointed as a subdtitute teacher at Rygersdal Primary, which is where he was teaching at all times relevant to this dispute. He was appointed in place of Hollyoway who was on vacation leave at the time, Holloway took a voluntary severance package on 30 September 1996, whereafter Liedeman because a temporary teacher in a substantive vacant post.
3.3 In and during November 1996, Liedeman and two colleagues (Henn and Jaffer ) approached the School Principal, Mr Danny Pietersen, to inquire about the possibility of thier status being changed from temporary to permanent Pietersen informed the three teachers that he wanted all three of them to be granted permanent status, and would take the necessary steps to ensure this. He also informed Liedeman that he did not intend advertising the post held by occupiedby Liedeman as he was afraid that an outsider might apply and be granted the post. On being told this Liedeman felt assured of gaining permanent status.
3.4 In July 1997 Pietersen applied to thw WCED for permanent status for Liedeman, Henn and Jaffer. The WCED referred the application to Provinicial Task Team which had been established to consider all applications for permanent status, and would take the necessary steps to ensure this. He also informed Liedeman that he did not intend advertising the post held by occupied by Liedeman as he was afraid that an outsider might apply and be granted the post. On being told this Liedeman felt assured of gaining permanent status.
3.5 In July 1997 Pietersen applied to the WCED for permanent status for Liedeman, Henn and Jaffer. The WCED referred the application to the Provincial Task Team which had been established to consider all application for permanent status. In a letter dated 1 October 1997 and addressed to the Assistant Director: Personnel in the WCED, the Task Team granted Liedeman permanent status, Was Liedeman employed on a fixed-term contract?
3.6 Towards the end of the proceedings, Mr Coetzee introduced a new argument, namely, that Liedeman was not informed that he was on fixed term contracts, and accordingly that he should be treated as in indefinite period employee. Mr Faker testified that Liedeman was employed on a series of three-monthly contracts, the last which expired in December 1997.
3.7 It was not disputed by Mr Coetzee that Liedeman was, in fact, employed on a series of fixed-term contracts. His argument was that Liedeman was never informed of this. But even if Liedeman was not informed of the exact duration of each contract (which I do not intend deciding) Liedeman was manifestly aware of the limited duration of his contract otherwise he would not have applied for permanent status. I do not intend deciding whether there was a reasonable expectation of renewal of the fixed-term contract and hence a dismissal within the meaning of the LRA, as this question was not included in my terms of reference and was not adequately canvassed during these proceedings.
4 . CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, I find that the WCED did not act wrongfully or unfairly in failing to grant Liedeman permanent status. Consequently, no award is made.
DATE OF AWARD 28 SEPTEMBER 1998
DAVID WOOLFREY
EDUCATION LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL
ARBITRATION AWARD
CASE NUMBER PSES CAR 001293 WC
APPLICANT LIEDEMAN (SADTU)
RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WC
NATURE CONTRACT / APPOINTMENT
ARBITRATOR D WOOLFREY
DATE OF ARBITRATION 8 SEPTEMBER 1998
VENUE CAPE TOWN
REPRESENTATION:
APPLICANT MR W COETZEE (SADTU)
RESPONDENT MR K PIETERSEN & MR S FAKE
AWARD:
For the above reasons, I find that the WCED did not act wrongfully or unfairly in failing to grant Liedeman permanent status. Consequently, no award is made.
DATE OF AWARD 28 SEPTEMBER 1998