- A quality control inspector worked for OCA Testing Inspection and Certification South Africa on successive fixed-term contracts during 2024 and 2025.
- The company proposed that he continue working as an independent contractor after his latest employment contract ended, but he insisted on remaining an employee.
- A further fixed-term contract was later withdrawn, and the resulting dispute has now been placed on hold by the Labour Court pending a review application.
A quality control inspector’s refusal to switch from employee to independent contractor status led to a dispute with his employer that is now on hold, after the Labour Court ordered arbitration proceedings to be suspended pending a review of the case.
The dispute is between TJ Saunders and OCA Testing Inspection and Certification South Africa. Saunders was employed by the company on written fixed-term contracts during 2024 and 2025. His most recent contract ran from 1 March 2025 until 14 December 2025.
On 24 December 2025, the company offered Saunders a short-term agreement for January 2026, which he accepted. This temporary arrangement allowed him to continue working while discussions took place about his future with the company.
During those discussions, OCA Global proposed that Saunders should no longer continue as an employee after January 2026, but should instead provide his services as an independent contractor.
Saunders rejected the proposed change and maintained that he wanted to remain an employee. The dispute therefore centred on the nature of the relationship under which he would continue working, rather than simply whether he was prepared to perform the same work.
The proposed change was significant because an independent contractor arrangement would have replaced the employment relationship under which Saunders had previously worked for the company.
Further fixed-term contract withdrawn
The company later offered Saunders another fixed-term contract that would have extended his employment until the end of March 2026. However, the offer was withdrawn on the same day before Saunders could accept it.
The withdrawal left Saunders without a further employment agreement and ultimately resulted in an unfair dismissal dispute being referred to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration.
The dispute also raised a preliminary question about whether the CCMA had jurisdiction to arbitrate the matter.
Commissioner finds dispute went beyond contract expiry
Saunders was represented by Solidarity during the arbitration proceedings. OCA Global raised a jurisdictional objection, arguing that the CCMA could not arbitrate the dispute.
Commissioner Chitane Soza ruled on the jurisdictional issue on 29 June 2026. The commissioner found that the circumstances surrounding the end of Saunders’ services could not simply be characterised as the natural expiry of a fixed-term contract or the withdrawal of an offer that had never been accepted.
In the ruling, Commissioner Soza stated, “The true reason for the termination of Mr Saunders’ services was not the natural end of a project or the simple withdrawal of an unaccepted offer but rather a unilateral reaction to allegations of misconduct by the Applicant’s client who demanded Mr Saunders’ removal.”
The finding brought the circumstances surrounding the termination directly into issue and allowed the arbitration dispute to proceed, prompting OCA Global to approach the Labour Court.
Labour Court puts arbitration on hold
OCA Global brought an urgent application before the Labour Court in Cape Town, seeking an interim interdict to stop the arbitration while it pursued a review of the commissioner’s ruling.
The application was heard by Acting Judge C May, who found that “urgency has been established”. The court also found that allowing the arbitration to continue would cause the company the harm it was seeking to prevent through its court application.
Judge May held, “The balance of convenience favours the Applicant” and concluded that “the requirements for an interdict” had been satisfied.
The court consequently ordered that the arbitration proceedings scheduled for 16 September 2026 be “interdicted and stayed pending the outcome of the Applicant’s review application.”
The order further provides that the relief operates as “an interim interdict pendente lite until the final determination of the review application”. The court also directed that the review application be expedited and ordered that “the costs of the application will be costs in the review application.”
Review will determine next step
The Labour Court’s order does not finally determine whether Saunders was unfairly dismissed or whether the CCMA ultimately has jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute. Those issues remain subject to the review proceedings.
For now, the arbitration cannot proceed while the review is being dealt with by the Labour Court.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
