This case concerns a number of important issues that arise when employees are engaged through the agency of temporary employment services to work on projects where completion dates are uncertain.

The Labour Court reaffirmed two important principles. First, the temporary employment service providing labour to a project managed by a contractor is the employer of the employees that it supplies to the project, in spite of the fact that the contractor (the temporary employment service's client) has day-to-day control over the activity of the employees. Secondly, the Court affirmed that contracts entered into for the purposes of a project that had no definite completion date, terminates automatically when the work that was contracted for, comes to an end.

The Applicants applied to the Labour Court for an order to the effect that their fixed term contacts of employment had been prematurely terminated. All of the Applicants had been employed by temporary employment services to work on a project to reconstruct and refit a ship. The duration of the contracts was limited to the period that it would take to complete the work. The First Respondent, the main contractor, argued that it was not the Applicants' employer, since Section 198 of the LRA provides that if a temporary employment service provides its own employees to a client to perform work for the client, those employees are employed by the temporary employment service, and not by the client.

The Labour Court found that even though the First Respondent (the Client) had been responsible for the day-to-day control of the Applicants' work, and even though it determined when the individual portions of the work making up the entire project had come to an end, this did not make the contractor the Applicants' employer. The effect of Section 198 was that the temporary employment services that had engaged the Applicants were their respective employers. Secondly, the Court found that the evidence disclosed that the contracts clearly provided that they would come to an end automatically on the happening of an uncertain future event i.e. the completion of the individual portions of work for which the Applicants had been contracted. In such a case, no procedure had to be followed, since continued employment was dependent on the happening of the event concerned. Since the contracts expired automatically, communication of this fact by the employer to the affected employees would be a courtesy rather than formal compliance with a required procedure. In a project of the nature of that in which the Applicants were engaged, it was clear that work would taper off incrementally and that fewer employees would be needed as the bulk of the work was completed. It was not open to the Applicants to dictate when their particular tasks were no longer required - progress on the project would determine that. For these reasons, the application was dismissed.

Summary produced by Perrott Van Niekerk Woodhouse Inc.

"In short, whether or not a secondary strike is protected is determined by weighing up two factors - the reasonableness of the nature and extent of the secondary strike (this is an enquiry into the effect of the strike on the secondary employer and will require consideration, inter alia, of the duration and form of the strike, the number of employees invo0lved, their conduct, the magnitude of the strike's impact on the secondary employer and the sector in which it occurs) and secondly, the effect of the secondary strike on the business of the primary employer, which is in essence an enquiry into the extent of the pressure that is placed on the primary employer" - A Van Niekerk AJ

Perrott, Van Niekerk and Woodhouse offer five training courses aimed at both SMME's and corporates. Andre van Niekerk, responsible for the overseeing of each course, is an accredited assessor in terms of the Skills Development legislation.

Applications for accreditation of these courses has been submitted and are awaiting the processing thereof. These courses include: Arbitration Training, Chairing Disciplinary Enquiries, Applying the Basic Conditions of Employment ("BCEA"), Labour Law for Managers, and Restructuring Business - Transfers of a business, Outsourcing & Retrenchment

This guide to the law of unfair dismissal, now in its third edition, explains the law with authority and in plain language. It is a guide, for trade unionists and employer representatives (and their legal representatives), HR practitioners and law students. The authors answer the following questions - who is an employee?; what is a dismissal?; what are the requirements for a fair dismissal?; what are employers' and employees' respective rights and obligations?; if I have been unfairly dismissed what procedures do I follow, and what are my remedies?

Summit's Law @ Work programme is broadcast every Tuesday evening on DSTV at 20h45 and repeated on Thursday evenings at 21h45 and Friday mornings at 06h45. Sponsored by Perrott Van Niekerk Woodhouse Matyolo Inc. and Caselaw.co.za.

Current web casts available for viewing:-

• Interview with Jimmy Manyi, Head of the Employment Equity Commission
• Sexual harassment and employment law. Simon Coleman interviews Marylyn Christianson (Associate Professor of Law)
• Who is an employee? - Simon Coleman interviews Rob Perrott of Perrott Van Niekerk Woodhouse Matyolo Inc
• Substance abuse in the workplace. Simon Coleman interviews Alexa Stafford (Organisational Health Specialist, SAB) and Adrie Vermeulen (Director: SANCA Johannesburg)
• Strike action and employment law. Simon Coleman interviews Duncan Innes, CEO of Innes Labour Briefs.

During the recent public sector strike, a number of unions sought to engage in sympathy strike action with public sector workers.

The SALGA v SAMWU, the association representing local government authority sought to interdict members of the SA Municipal Workers Union from engaging in a one day sympathy strike in solidarity with public sector workers. The Labour Court dismissed the application, and held that the proposed secondary action was protected.

The Court applied section 66 of the LRA (which deals with secondary strikes) and held that all three requirements established by that section had been satisfied. First, the primary strike (the strike by public sector workers) was protected, secondly, proper notice of the secondary strike had been given, and thirdly, the Court was satisfied that the nature and extent of the secondary strike was reasonable in relation to its effect on the business of the primary employer. The Court took into account that the nature and extent of the proposed secondary strike was limited. It was a one day strike, and the Union had made it clear that its members engaged in essential services should not strike.

Second, local authorities were an integral part of government and given the relationship of integration, co-ordination and co-operation between local authorities and provincial and national government, the proposed strike was reasonable in relation to its effect on the business of the higher tiers government.

In coming to its conclusion, the Court disagreed with previous decisions by the Labour Court that had rejected as irrelevant any evaluation of the effect of the secondary strike on the business of the secondary employer, and any application of a proportionality requirement in assessing the reasonableness of the secondary strike.

The Court held that both factors were relevant to determining whether or not the reasonableness requirement established by section 66 had been met, and therefore whether the secondary strike should be protected.