Legal updates and opinions
News / News
Retrenchment of employees on fixed-term contracts: How far can you go?
by Sandile July, Director and Nyiko Mathebula, Candidate Attorney
Retrenchments are viewed in a bad light due to the very sensitive socio‑economic element of rendering employees jobless. Although regulated by statute, in particular sections 189 and 189A of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, employers still find the retrenchment process a difficult one to navigate.
The advent of the COVID-19 pandemic has made retrenchments commonplace for obvious reasons. As such, once the hurdle of whether to retrench or not has been cleared, and the outcome is to retrench, the question that follows is who then does the employer select to be retrenched.
There are different types of employees; those who are employed on a permanent basis and those on who are on fixed-term contracts. The difficulty comes in where an employee falls under the latter classification. This is because the law provides a stronger protection to those employees because of the nature of their contracts. Simply put, a fixed-term contract of employment cannot be terminated for any other reason outside of a material breach, repudiation, or by way of the contract coming to its natural end e.g. effluxion of time.
However, there are different types of fixed-term contracts which may change the above position. These are classified according to the following:
- the period to which the contract is set to exist;
- the completion of a specific task or project; or
- the occurrence of a specific event.
What is important about the above is that in respect of the first two types of fixed‑term contracts, an employer cannot retrench an employee. The reason being that the employer is bound by the law to honour the terms of those agreements namely; 1) termination by effluxion of time; or 2) termination on competition of the specified task or project.
This brings us to the third type of contract mentioned above. In that instance, should the contract state that the employment relationship is terminable for reasons of operational requirements, the employee may be retrenched even if the fixed period of time has not ended or the specified task or project has not been completed. As such, the inclusion of such a term in the contract serves to guard against the risk of having the dismissal held to be substantively unfair when it is legally challenged at a later stage.
Consequently, when contemplating retrenchments, employers should beware of the fixed-term contracts. Accordingly, those contracts should be perused to establish whether there exists a provision which allows the employer to retrench those particular employees. If not, then the employer is bound by the law which says that where you have a fixed-term contract, an employer cannot dismiss the employee based on operational requirements.
Latest News
Business Rescue – SARS Liability Arises on the Transaction, Not the Assessment – The Henque Case
By Eric Levenstein - Director and Head of Insolvency & Business Rescue, Amy Mackechnie - Senior Associate and Kaymana Han [...]
What Does the Domestic Violence Act Say About Gaslighting?
By Dakalo Singo (Director, Head of Pro Bono Practice) The short answer: nothing! But that is not the end of [...]
Understanding Domestic Violence – Why it is difficult to leave an abusive relationship
By Dakalo Singo (Director, Head of Pro Bono Practice) Introduction People in abusive relationships are often asked: "Why don't you [...]
Blacklisting in South Africa – A Women’s Month Crash Course
By Naledi Motsiri (Director) and S'nenhlanhla Lushaba (Candidate Attorney) August, celebrated as Women’s Month in South Africa, is a time [...]
Access to Justice – Standing with Women Beyond Women’s Month
By Naledi Motsiri (Director) and Nothando Nyoni (Associate) As Women's Month draws to an end, it is worth reflecting on [...]
Do shareholders need any reasons whatsoever, to remove a director from the board of a company?
Author: Brendan Olivier, Director, Insolvency & Business Rescue In the recent decision of Weir v Wiehahn Formwork Solutions (Pty) Ltd [...]