- Labour Court dismissed the employee’s review application.
- The court found the alleged promise came from officials with no authority to appoint municipal staff.
- The expiry of the fixed-term contract did not amount to an unfair dismissal.
The Labour Court in Cape Town has ruled that a promise of permanent employment made during a GOOD party caucus meeting could not bind Theewaterskloof Local Municipality or create a lawful expectation of a permanent job.
Acting Judge W Jacobs dismissed a review application brought by a former municipal employee who wanted to overturn an arbitration award after her fixed-term contract expired on 31 December 2022. She claimed she had been unfairly dismissed and asked the court to reinstate her permanently.
The court found that even if a promise had been made, it held no legal weight because the officials involved did not have the authority to appoint municipal employees.
Political promise sparked the dispute
The dispute began after a meeting on 28 June 2022 between the employee, her union representative, and four GOOD party members, including the deputy mayor and the municipality’s Director of Community Services.
According to the employee, she was told she would first be appointed on a fixed-term contract, then later become a permanent office manager.
But when she reported for duty, objections from councillors and municipal officials stopped the arrangement. She was told to apply for an advertised position through the municipality’s usual recruitment process and was later appointed as a temporary administrator on a fixed-term contract.
Settlement confirmed temporary employment
The employee later challenged her job title and salary, which led to a settlement agreement that upgraded her to office manager with higher pay backdated to July 2022. However, the agreement made it clear that her employment would end on 31 December 2022.
After the municipality declined to renew her contract, she brought an unfair dismissal dispute, arguing that the earlier promise had given her a reasonable expectation of permanent employment.
Authority rested with the municipality, not the caucus
Acting Judge W Jacobs found that the June meeting was a GOOD party caucus, not a formal municipal decision-making meeting.
The judge said appointments to municipal jobs have to be made through authorised municipal structures, and that neither the director nor the deputy mayor had the legal authority to promise permanent employment on behalf of the municipality.
The court also rejected the argument that later recruitment documents confirmed the original promise. The court found these documents related to the temporary appointment, not the permanent position the employee said she had been offered.
The judge said any expectation of permanent employment was further undermined when the employee learned about objections to her appointment and later signed a settlement agreement that clearly confirmed her job was fixed-term.
Harassment allegations did not alter the outcome
The employee said her permanent appointment was denied because she reported sexual harassment by the deputy mayor and later raised complaints of discrimination and victimisation.
The court found there was not enough evidence to show that her complaints turned the expiry of her fixed-term contract into a dismissal. The review application was dismissed, and the Labour Court made no order as to costs.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
