28 August 2025 – ELRC1416-24/25NC

Case Number: ELRC1416-24/25NC
Panelist: LEKUKA MORE
Date of Ruling: 25 AUGUST 2025

In the Arbitration between

ANNA-STRAZIA OLIVIER
(Union/Applicant)

And

DEPARTMENT OF BASIC EDUCATION, NORTHERN CAPE
(Respondent)

DETAILS OF HEARING AND REPRESENTATION

The Arbitration hearing was scheduled for 20 August 2025 at the premises of the Respondent in Upington.
The Applicant was self-represented whereas the Respondent party was represented by Ms. Lulama Tutani-Jara, a Labour Relations Officer.
The proceedings were mechanically recorded, and handwritten notes were taken as well.

BACKGROUND TO THE DISPUTE

The Applicant was employed on a fixed term contract of employment on the 10 April 2024. The fixed term contract of employment ended on the 31 December 2024.
The Applicant was appointed as an Additional Temporary Educator.
The relief sought by the Applicant was twelve (12) months’ compensation.
The Respondent contended that the Applicant was not dismissed.

ISSUE TO BE DECIDED

The issue to be decided pertains to whether the Applicant, Ms. Anna-Strazia Olivier was unfairly dismissed or alternatively whether the Respondent created a reasonable and legitimate expectation of renewing the fixed term contract of employment of the Applicant in terms of section 186 (1) (b) of the Labour Relations Act, no 66 of 1995 (as amended) (LRA)
I have considered all the evidence and arguments presented by both parties but section 138(7) of the LRA only requires me to provide brief reasons for my decision. Therefore, I have only referred to the evidence and arguments presented by both parties herein that I regard as necessary and relevant to substantiate my findings and the determination of the dispute.
Both parties submitted bundles of documents marked “A” and “B”.
Section 192(1) and (2) of the LRA state that: –

(i) In any proceedings concerning dismissal the Employee must establish the existence of the dismissal.
(ii) If the existence of the dismissal is established the Employer must prove that the dismissal was fair.

In this present dispute, the dismissal is in dispute, therefore the onus falls on the Applicant to establish the existence of the dismissal.

SURVEY OF EVIDENCE SUBMISSIONS AND ARGUMENTS
THE APPLICANT’S EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT

Ms. Olivier testified under oath that she was appointed as Temporary Educator on a fixed term contract of employment from the 10 April 2024 until 31 December 2024. She received a verbal assurance from the Principal, Mr. Smith, that she will be retained beyond the expiry of her contract of employment. She submitted her NCK 1 application form sometime in November 2024.
Other Educators who were also on a fixed term contract of employment in 2024, were given fixed term contracts of employment for 2025 academic year.
Mr. Assegaai was appointed on a fixed term contract of employment for 2025 academic year at Saul Damon High School. Mr. Assegaai apparently sent his application form to the school only in 2025. Mr. Smith, the Principal, told them that there will be job opportunities for them in 2025. In November 2024, she saw a table time with her name on the 2025 academic year and concluded that her contract will be renewed. She had reasonable expectations that her fixed term contract of employment will be renewed after she saw her name on the 2025 academic year and the assurances made by the Principal, Mr. Smith. She sought twelve (12) months’ compensation. The Applicant’s case was thereafter closed.

THE RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT

Mr. Petrus Thomas Smith testified under oath that, he was the Principal of Saul Damon High School. The school normally received information from the District Office regarding Additional Educators or Excess Educators at the end of January or beginning of February on a yearly basis. If they had excess of Educators for a current academic year, those Educators would be sent to other schools.
In November 2024, there was no additional posts. As a principal he does not appoint Educators. He didn’t promise nor gave assurance to Temporary Educators that, they will be retained, or that their contracts of employment will be renewed. He could not have made such an assurance, if he was not certain whether they would need Temporary Educators for the academic year of 2025 or not. He encouraged Temporary Educators in November 2024, to submit their applications, which would be considered in the event of a a need for the appointment of Temporary Educators. The School’s Senior Management Team together with School Governing Body recommend Candidates to be appointed by the Department. The Respondent ultimately has vested rights to appoint Educators. When there was vacancy for a Temporary Educator, they don’t advertise the vacancy but rather recommend Candidates from their database. The position that the applicant occupied as a temporary educator in 2024, was also not advertised. She submitted her CV, which was kept on their database and was recommended for appointment in 2024. The don’t advertise posts of temporary educators but rather recommend them for appointment from the pool of CVS’s that they already have in their database.

ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS

The Applicant contended that the non-renewal of her fixed term contract of employment amounted to an unfair dismissal. The Respondent argued that the fixed term contract of employment of the Applicant came to its natural end through the effluxion of time. I am requested to determine on a balance of probabilities if the Applicant was unfairly dismissed on the basis that the Respondent created a reasonable expectation of renewal of a fixed term contract of employment.
It is common cause that the Applicant was on a fixed term contract of employment which came to an end on the 31 December 2024. The bone of contention of the Applicant’s arguments is that the Principal, Mr. Smith created a legitimate expectation of renewal of her contract of employment. Ms. Olivier argued that, in November 2024, Mr. Smith told Temporary Educators that there will be job opportunities for them in 2025.
Mr. Smith contended that in November 2024, he did not know if the Department of Education will give them Additional Temporary Educators posts. He further argued that he didn’t promise to extend or renew the contract of employment of the Applicant. He submitted that, he encouraged Temporary Educators to submit their applications in case of the availability of additional posts, which they will consider and recommend appointments to the Respondent.
The version of the Applicant that, Mr. Assegaai was appointed instead of her is absurd. The Applicant implied that she was entitled to be appointed to any Additional Temporary Educator post that existed because she was appointed as an Additional Temporary Educator in 2024. The fixed term contract of employment signed between the parties herein, did not make provision for renewal of the contract of employment.
In the case of BLACK V JOHN SNOW PUBLIC HEALTH GROUP [2010] 31 IJL1152, the Labour Court held that the evidence presented did not support the contention that the Employee had a reasonable expectation that her contract would be renewed or made permanent. She knew that the organization was reliant on donors. The mere proposal by the Employer that temporary positions ought to be converted to permanent ones, could not have elevate any expectation of permanent employment to a reasonable expectation.
The Applicant knew that Additional Temporary Educators posts are reliant on number of Learners. The mere submissions by the principal that, there will be job opportunities in 2025 without the exact number of Learners for 2025, could not have elevated any expectation of renewal of a contract of employment to a reasonable expectation.
For any Individual to succeed under Section 186(1) (b) of the LRA, the Applicant had to establish an expectation that the Respondent would renew her contract and that her expectation was reasonable. The creation of Additional Temporary Educators was based on the increased number of Learners. The expectation that the Applicant had was self-created and therefore not reasonable.
Considering the above, I find that the Applicant was not dismissed and furthermore find that the Respondent created no reasonable expectation that the Applicant’s fixed term contract would be renewed.
Put differently the Applicant’s contract of employment came to an end due to the effluxion of time (no dismissal) and the Applicant proved no reasonable expectation of a renewal of her contract on a balance of probabilities.

AWARD