MRL3702
OCT/NOV EXAM 2024
UNIQUE NO.
DUE DATE: 13 OCTOBER 2024
, STUDENT NO
MRL3702 EXAMINATION
DATE: 13 October 2024
Question 1
Gatedi's assertion that they became permanent employees of MM by operation of
law may not be entirely accurate. In South African labor law, the concept of "deemed
employment" arises when a fixed-term contract is renewed multiple times, leading to
the presumption that the employees have become permanent. However, this
presumption can be rebutted by the employer.
➢ Relevant Authority
The Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA) and the principle established in the case
of NEHAWU obo Nganezi and Others v University of Cape Town and Another (2003)
are pertinent to this situation. The court held that the renewal of fixed-term contracts
does not automatically result in permanent employment. The onus is on the
employees to prove that they have become permanent employees by operation of
law.
➢ Possible Defences by MM
• Contractual Agreement: MM may argue that S’boko and Gatedi's contracts
clearly stipulated the fixed-term nature of their employment, and there was no
intention to create permanent employment.
• Objective Justification: MM could demonstrate that there were valid objective
justifications for the fixed-term nature of the contracts, such as specific
project-based work or temporary operational requirements.
• Breach of Duty to Prove: MM may contend that S’boko and Gatedi failed to
discharge the burden of proof to establish their permanent employment status
by operation of law.
• Custom and Practice: MM might assert that it is common in their industry for
employees to work on successive fixed-term contracts without automatically
becoming permanent employees.
In conclusion, while Gatedi's view is based on the concept of deemed employment,
MM can raise valid defences to rebut this view. It is essential for S’boko and Gatedi
to seek legal advice and carefully consider the specific circumstances of their
employment to determine their actual employment status.
OCT/NOV EXAM 2024
UNIQUE NO.
DUE DATE: 13 OCTOBER 2024
, STUDENT NO
MRL3702 EXAMINATION
DATE: 13 October 2024
Question 1
Gatedi's assertion that they became permanent employees of MM by operation of
law may not be entirely accurate. In South African labor law, the concept of "deemed
employment" arises when a fixed-term contract is renewed multiple times, leading to
the presumption that the employees have become permanent. However, this
presumption can be rebutted by the employer.
➢ Relevant Authority
The Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA) and the principle established in the case
of NEHAWU obo Nganezi and Others v University of Cape Town and Another (2003)
are pertinent to this situation. The court held that the renewal of fixed-term contracts
does not automatically result in permanent employment. The onus is on the
employees to prove that they have become permanent employees by operation of
law.
➢ Possible Defences by MM
• Contractual Agreement: MM may argue that S’boko and Gatedi's contracts
clearly stipulated the fixed-term nature of their employment, and there was no
intention to create permanent employment.
• Objective Justification: MM could demonstrate that there were valid objective
justifications for the fixed-term nature of the contracts, such as specific
project-based work or temporary operational requirements.
• Breach of Duty to Prove: MM may contend that S’boko and Gatedi failed to
discharge the burden of proof to establish their permanent employment status
by operation of law.
• Custom and Practice: MM might assert that it is common in their industry for
employees to work on successive fixed-term contracts without automatically
becoming permanent employees.
In conclusion, while Gatedi's view is based on the concept of deemed employment,
MM can raise valid defences to rebut this view. It is essential for S’boko and Gatedi
to seek legal advice and carefully consider the specific circumstances of their
employment to determine their actual employment status.
