Hot from court - 3 months fixed term and you ARE permanant

[sterne.law@gmail.com]

https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/south-africa/2017-07-13-huge-court-victory-for-workers-hired-by-labour-brokers/

[Dave A]

I've now read the judgement and just as I suspected, the headline is misleading.

This appeal judgement sets aside the judgement of Acting Judge Martin Brassey who ruled that temporary employment services (labour brokers) and client companies are dual employers, and restores the original ruling of the CCMA's Commissioner in the case. That original ruling is that except where the temporary employment service is to cover for the absence of an employee, the "client" becomes the sole employer of the temporary service employee after 3 months.

The conditions under which fixed term (temporary) employment is legislated to become indefinite period employment remains unaffected by this appeal judgement.

[Greig Whitton]

I think that this judgment has seismic implications for the employment services sector and the companies that rely on them. From what I've been told, this judgment is going to the Constitutional Court, so it's far from over.

[Dave A]

I think that this judgment has seismic implications for the employment services sector and the companies that rely on them.

Absolutely. It significantly limits the manner in which one can use labour brokers for placements in posts that are in place for longer than 3 months.

The scenario I've been party to being closely examined is in the area of construction, particularly large projects. What has been identified is that it is still possible to employ people on fixed term contracts connected to the life of their required involvement in the project. What this case affects (as it trudges its way through the legal process) is the role labour brokers can play in that scenario.

[sterne.law@gmail.com]

The matter is on its way to ConCourt

The import is this.
It does not mean you cannot have a contract that is longer than 3 months. If that were the case the correct wording would be "is or becomes"
If you remember the original move was to totally ban brokering.
This was then resolve by saying OK but lets legislate .

What the amendment wants to achieve is to avoid exploitation. This is where the company uses a broker to avoid paying a minimum wage, medical aid pension etc.
The new judgment effectively clarifies the equal pay equal work principle and that it applies to all people performing work.