IN THE EDUCATION LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL HELD IN
CAPE TOWN

Case No ELRC 1450-24/25WC

In the matter between:

Rouseau Geduld Applicant

And

Western Cape Education Department Respondent

Heard: 12 August 2025

Arbitrator: A. Singh-Bhoopchand

Date of award: 28 August 2025

ARBITRATION AWARD

DETAILS OF HEARING AND REPRESENATION

1. This matter was heard virtually on 12 August 2025 . The hearing was concluded when the parties submitted their closing arguments on 19 August 2025.
2. The Respondent, the Western Cape Education Department was represented in these proceedings by Ms Diedericks, a labour relations official within the Labour Relations Directorate of the Respondent. Mr Tyla Viviers, an attorney from the legal firm Parker Attorneys represented the Applicant, Ms Raquel Rousseau Geduld.
3. One bundle of documents was submitted as supporting evidence.
4. Proceedings were digitally recorded.

ISSUE TO BE DECIDED

5. I must decide whether the Applicant was dismissed in terms of the provisions of section 186(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act. In the event of finding that she was dismissed, I must decide whether the dismissal was fair.

BACKGROUND

6. The Applicant was employed by the Respondent on fixed term contracts and placed at St Helena Bay Intermediary School. Her first 12-month contract commenced in January 2021 and was renewed every December for the years 2022 and 2023. After 3 consecutive renewals, her contract terminated in December 2024.
7. During or about May 2024, the Applicant applied for the conversion of her post from a temporary position to permanency. She did not receive any response to this application.
8. It is common cause that during 2024 and during a staff meeting , the Principal informed the staff members that positions held contractually will not be renewed . It is also common cause that during this meeting, the Principal handed out written letters confirming this to those staff members whose contracts were being terminated.
9. The Applicants version is that she did not receive such a letter and that she was informed by the Principal , Mr Williams, that the non-renewal did not apply to those currently undergoing the conversion application process.
10. The Respondent’s version is that the Applicant’s contract was terminated and that she was handed the letter by the Principal confirming that her contract would not be renewed .

SURVEY OF EVIDENCE
Applicant’s Case

11. Raquel Rousseau Geduld: She testified that she reported for work at St Helena Scool on 13 January 2025, but the Principal informed her that she no longer has a job at the school. This came as a surprise to her as the Principal had told her during her tenure at the school that she need not worry as her contract would be renewed every year.
12. She did not receive the letter on page 16 of the employer’s bundle. During a staff meeting during or about September 2024, when the Principal informed staff members that contract posts would not be renewed , she stood up and said that she had applied for conversion. His response was that she should wait to be informed by the Department.
13. As from October 2024, she was on sick leave and did not return to school for the rest of the year.
14. Prior to reporting for duty on 13 January 2025, she emailed the Principal enquiring about her duties for 2025. She did not receive a response. She reported for duty on 13 January because she expected to have a job.
15. During cross examination she said that the only document that was shown to her at the staff meeting was a list that had all their names on it. It was not the document on page 16 of the employer’s bundle. She said that the principal’s exact words at the meeting were that many of the basket posts will not be renewed and that many of the posts would be made redundant. Her understanding was that this did not include her as she had applied for conversion

Respondent’s Case

16. Three witnesses testified, the school Principal, Mr Jamie Robert Williams, MS Danielle du Plessis who is a learning support educator and Ms Josephs, an educator.
17. Jamie R.Williams: He testified that the Department informed him in 2024 that contract posts would not be renewed. He communicated this to educators at a staff meeting during September 2024 . Letters informing the educators that their contracts would not be renewed were issued to each of the affected educators. He first read out the content of the letter to the meeting and he then personally handed over the letter to each of the educators, including the Applicant .
18. The educators were asked to sign an acknowledgment of receipt of the letter. There was a discussion as to whether they should sign following which a union representative advised them not to sign. The only question that the Applicant raised was around the signing of the acknowledgement of receipt. She did not sign the document.
19. He said that he did not receive an email from the Applicant on 6 January 2025. When shown a copy of the email his response was that the email reads as if the Applicant is aware that her contract has ended.
20. Daniele du Plessis:She confirmed that she was present during the meeting of September 2024 and that educators were handed letters by the Principal The Applicant was also handed a letter . She could not confirm whether the letter on page 16 of the employer’s bundle was the letter that was handed to the Applicant as she did not have sight of the content of the letter on that day.
21. Josephs: She was present at the meeting of September 2024 where she took minutes. The meeting was about posts that were going to be terminated. She confirmed that the Principal handed out Notices of termination to all educators whose post was being terminated, including the Applicant.

ANALYSIS

22. Dismissal is defined in section 186 (1)(b) as follows:
    An employee employed on a fixed term contract of employment reasonably expected the employer-
    (i). to renew a fixed-term contract of employment on the same or similar terms but the employer offered to renew it on less favourable or did not renew it.
    (ii). To retain the employee in employment on an indefinite basis but otherwise on the same or similar terms as the fixed term contract, but the employer offered to retain the employee on less favourable terms , or did not offer to retain the employee

23, The Labour Appeal Court in De MILANDER V Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Finance: Eastern Cape and Others established a two -step inquiry . The first step is to determine if the employee had a subjective expectation that their fixed term contract would be renewed or that they would be retained on an indefinite basis. This is a personal belief on the part of the employee.

23. The second and more crucial step is to assess whether that subjective expectation was objectively reasonable. General factors considered in determining the objective reasonableness of the expectation include:
    The terms of the contract itself; previous conduct and past practice of the employer, such as consistently renewing the employee’s contract multiple times; assurances or promises made by the employer either verbally or in writing; the nature of the work performed by the employee and the permanence of the need for the role and the reason given by the employer for the non-renewal.
24. If the employee can satisfy both steps of this inquiry , a “dismissal “ is deemed to have occurred, and the onus then shifts to the employer to prove that the dismissal was fair.
25. According to the Applicant, the Principal requested her to apply for the conversion of her post from a temporary post to permanency, which she did. She seems to suggest that because she was asked to apply for conversion, that she in fact qualified for conversion and she therefore expected to be converted.
26. Collective Agreement 4 of 2018 provides for the conversion of temporary educators to permanency . It lays down set criteria that must be met before an educator can be converted. It is the Department and not the school principal that determines whether those criteria have been met .Therefore the fact that the Principal asked her to apply for conversion does not necessarily mean that she qualified for conversion. Although the Applicant did not receive a response to her application, she was informed by the Department representative at this hearing that she does not qualify for conversion as she was not occupying a vacant substantive post. It is not a fait accompli that when one applies for something , especially in circumstances where the application is subject to certain criteria being met, that it will be granted.
27. In any event , the application for conversion is a process on its own and is not necessarily related to the expectation envisaged in section 186(1)(b). The Applicant had a subjective expectation of renewal of her contract due to the continued renewal of her contract over three years. She also claims that she had not been informed that her contract was terminating.
28. Applicant argues that her expectation was objectively reasonable because of previous renewals along with the Respondent’s willingness to request that she applies for conversion. I have already dealt with the issue of conversion.
29. The issue of previous renewals must be viewed in the context of the meeting of September 2024. The Principal’s evidence that he handed the Applicant a letter was corroborated by two witnesses. According to the Principal, the letter was the Notice of termination. The Applicant claims that she did not receive any Notice of Termination and that the only document that she was shown was a document bearing the names of many educators. It was established that the document that the educators were called upon to sign was an acknowledgement of receipt of the Notice of Termination which the Applicant refused to sign. It is improbable that she would have been asked to sign an acknowledgement of receipt if she had not been handed the letter.
30. It is understandable that the Applicant feels aggrieved given that her contract was renewed on three occasions previously. However, this does not translate to a reasonable expectation, especially in circumstances where she was informed as early as September 2025 that her contract will not be renewed. Further, an application for conversion cannot be equated with a reasonable expectation in the context of section 186(1)(b).

On the totality of the factors before me, I make the following award:

AWARD
The Applicant, R. Rousseau Geduld, was not dismissed in terms of the provisions of Section 186(1)(b).

Panellist: ELRC

A.Singh-Bhoopchand