SA Rugby Players’ Association (SARPA) & others v SA Rugby (Pty) Ltd & others; SA Rugby Pty Ltd v
SARPU & another [2008] 9 BLLR 845 (LAC) – non-renewal of a fixed-term contract
Three appellants: Matfield, Bands and Bezuidenhout
All professional rugby players
Concluded fixed-term contracts with the respondent to play for the Springbok term during
2003
The contracts all expired at the end of that year
In addition, Matfield concluded a standard player’s contract for the entirety of 2003
Towards the end of the year, appellant union wrote to the then coach, expressing concern
that no arrangements had been made for the renewal of the players’ contracts
o Coach assured them that the contracts would be renewed
Soon thereafter, coach resigned and management of the respondent changed
New management decided to do away with annual contracts and pay players on a ‘match
fee’ basis
Respondent denied to renew the contracts – union referred dispute to CCMA claiming that
the three players had been unfairly dismissed
o Commissioner found that the coach’s promise had given them all a reasonable
expectation that their contracts would be renewed
o Therefore they had been unfairly dismissed – awarded them each compensation
Review to LC which upheld the commissioner’ finding re Matfield but disagreed that the
other two had been unfairly dismissed
Union appealed against the LC’s finding re Bands and Bezuidenhout, and SA Rugby cross-
appealed against the finding that Matfield had been dismissed
Labour Appeal Court
o Court held that the appellants bore the onus of establishing that they had a
reasonable expectation that their contracts would be renewed
o Test: whether a reasonable employee would have acquired an expectation that his
fixed-term contract would be renewed on the same or similar terms
o Players based their claim that they had a reasonable expectation on the remarks of
the coach
o However, the clear statements in the contracts that they should not expect renewal
required very strong evidence, which they did not bring
o LC had therefore correctly found that B and B had not been dismissed
o W.t.t. Matfield, the court held that failure to communicate an intention not to
renew cannot mean that the contract will be renewed when the contract itself does
not provide for renewal
o The players had merely been left in a state of uncertainty, but it was not established
that they had a reasonable expectation of renewal
o Coach lacked authority to offer contracts – his assurances could therefore not be
relied upon
o Court concluded that none of the players had established a reasonable expectation
that their fixed-term contracts would be renewed
o Appeal dismissed and cross-appeal upheld
Department of Correctional Services & another and Another v Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union
(POPCRU) and Others [2013] ZASCA 40 – automatically unfair dismissal; defence of inherent
requirements of the job
SCA considered the defence of an inherent requirement of the job in a case in which prison
officials who wore dreadlocks had refused to comply with the employer’s rules relating to
hairstyles
SARPU & another [2008] 9 BLLR 845 (LAC) – non-renewal of a fixed-term contract
Three appellants: Matfield, Bands and Bezuidenhout
All professional rugby players
Concluded fixed-term contracts with the respondent to play for the Springbok term during
2003
The contracts all expired at the end of that year
In addition, Matfield concluded a standard player’s contract for the entirety of 2003
Towards the end of the year, appellant union wrote to the then coach, expressing concern
that no arrangements had been made for the renewal of the players’ contracts
o Coach assured them that the contracts would be renewed
Soon thereafter, coach resigned and management of the respondent changed
New management decided to do away with annual contracts and pay players on a ‘match
fee’ basis
Respondent denied to renew the contracts – union referred dispute to CCMA claiming that
the three players had been unfairly dismissed
o Commissioner found that the coach’s promise had given them all a reasonable
expectation that their contracts would be renewed
o Therefore they had been unfairly dismissed – awarded them each compensation
Review to LC which upheld the commissioner’ finding re Matfield but disagreed that the
other two had been unfairly dismissed
Union appealed against the LC’s finding re Bands and Bezuidenhout, and SA Rugby cross-
appealed against the finding that Matfield had been dismissed
Labour Appeal Court
o Court held that the appellants bore the onus of establishing that they had a
reasonable expectation that their contracts would be renewed
o Test: whether a reasonable employee would have acquired an expectation that his
fixed-term contract would be renewed on the same or similar terms
o Players based their claim that they had a reasonable expectation on the remarks of
the coach
o However, the clear statements in the contracts that they should not expect renewal
required very strong evidence, which they did not bring
o LC had therefore correctly found that B and B had not been dismissed
o W.t.t. Matfield, the court held that failure to communicate an intention not to
renew cannot mean that the contract will be renewed when the contract itself does
not provide for renewal
o The players had merely been left in a state of uncertainty, but it was not established
that they had a reasonable expectation of renewal
o Coach lacked authority to offer contracts – his assurances could therefore not be
relied upon
o Court concluded that none of the players had established a reasonable expectation
that their fixed-term contracts would be renewed
o Appeal dismissed and cross-appeal upheld
Department of Correctional Services & another and Another v Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union
(POPCRU) and Others [2013] ZASCA 40 – automatically unfair dismissal; defence of inherent
requirements of the job
SCA considered the defence of an inherent requirement of the job in a case in which prison
officials who wore dreadlocks had refused to comply with the employer’s rules relating to
hairstyles
