[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-502198-105":59,"doc-detail-502198-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","27-october-2020-johannesburg-jr2165-18-unilever-south-africa-pty-ltd-v-elizabeth-lerumo-no-others","27 October 2020 - Johannesburg - JR2165-18 - Unilever South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Elizabeth Lerumo N.O. & others","","Labour Court of South Africa, Johannesburg, Case No JR2165/18, concerns an application to review CCMA arbitration and a variation ruling arising from the dismissal of fixed-term employment arrangements offered by Unilever. The court addresses jurisdiction under the Labour Relations Act and the section 198B/198D review test, including the absence of a condonation application after failure to refer the dispute timeously. It also evaluates material legal error affecting whether relief granted by the arbitrator was correct.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/27-october-2020-johannesburg-jr2165-18-unilever-south-africa-pty-ltd-v-elizabeth-lerumo-no-others/502198/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/27-october-2020-johannesburg-jr2165-18-unilever-south-africa-pty-ltd-v-elizabeth-lerumo-no-others/502198.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Rhys","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-10","2026-10-03",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":29},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What employment arrangement led to the dispute in JR2165/18?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"Unilever retrenched packers in March 2017, then offered fixed-term contracts starting 1 April 2017, with flexible hours and exclusions from certain schemes. The affected employees continued working without signing the written fixed-term contracts.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What did the CCMA commissioner decide in the main arbitration award?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"The commissioner found that no valid written fixed-term contract existed as required under section 198D, and therefore the employees were deemed to be permanent from April 2017, with associated benefits and remuneration parity.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"Which main issues did the Labour Court address first?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The court considered the main award review application first because Unilever raised two jurisdictional points, which could dispose of all three matters.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},502198,1791056737,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":29,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":36},687207024643,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_3d24733baf745e90a7e4bdd5f77d97b2","IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG  \nReportable  \nCase no: JR2165/18  \nIn the matter between:  \nUNILEVER SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD Applicant  \nand  \nCOMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION,  \nMEDIATION AND ARBITRATION First Respondent  \nELIZABETH LERUMO N.O. Second Respondent  \nAMALUNGELO WORKERS' UNION OBO MAYISELA,  \nSTEVEN JABULANI AND 29 OTHERS Third Respondent  \nHeard: 23 July 2020  \nDelivered: 27 October 2020  \nSummary: CCMA arbitration proceedings - review of award of arbitrator as  \nwell as variation ruling - lack of jurisdiction relating to relief awarded by  \narbitrator under section 198D of the Labour Relations Act, No. 66 of 1995 , as amended - test for review - lack of condonation application for failure to refer dispute timeously under section 198B(5) of Labour Relations Act-material error of law and jurisdiction-review considered as the basis of what is correct  \nJUDGMENT  \nOLIVIER, AJ  \nIntroduction  \n[1] At the end of March 2017 all of the third respondent's members as well as other employees employed as packers were retrenched and received severance packages.  \n[2] On 1 April 2017, the third respondent's members , and other packers employed by the applicant , were offered fixed term contracts of employment. The third respondent's members did not sign these contracts but continued to work at the applicant under the conditions as specified in the offers of employment , that being, that they would be employed on a fixed term basis with flexible working hours (i.e. they were called as and when they were required) . The employees worked as packers on the \"Santa Clause Project\" and it was envisaged that the employees would not be required after June 2019, as this was the date on which the project would terminate. As per the offer of employment, the employees, as fixed term employees, would not be entitled to participate in the applicant's medical aid, pension, education or home loan schemes.  \n[3] Dissatisfied with this arrangement, the third respondent, on behalf of its members, referred a dispute to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) on 16 April 2018. On the CCMA referral form it was recorded that the date that the dispute arose was 12 April 2018 and that the nature of the dispute was a section 198B Labour Relations Act 1 (LRA) dispute.  \n[4] The facts were recorded as \"employer's refusal or failure to consider employees permanent-section 198B of LRA\" . The result required was that the \"employees to be considered permanent\".  \n1 No. 66 of 1995 , as amended.  \n[5] On 6 September 2018, the second respondent Elizabeth Lerumo (the commissioner) , issued an arbitration award (the main award) , in which she found that the third respondent's members did not conclude a written contract with the applicant as a contract in terms of which an employee is employed to perform work on a fixed term basis must be in writing, and that contract must stipulate the reason for the limited duration contract. Therefore, the third respondent's members were not employed on a fixed term contract but rather for an indefinite duration.  \n[6] Following on from these findings, the second respondent made the following award:  \n6.1 the third respondent's members are deemed to be permanent employees of the applicant with effect from April 2017;  \n6.2 the applicant is to assist the third respondent's members to participate in the applicant's medical aid, pension, education and home loan schemes; and  \n6.3 the applicant is to pay the third respondent's members, with effect from April 2017, rates of remuneration which are not less favourable than those earned by permanent employees performing the same or similar work.  \n[7] Discontent with the main award the applicant filed a review application (main review application) on 19 October 2018 under this case number, JR 2165/18 .  \n[8] On 21 May 2019 the third respondent applied to the CCMA, seeking the variation of the main award in order to quantify the back-pay owed in t","cbCaithhbpXxAsxf","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaithhbpXxAsxf","pdf",224414,16,"English","# Introduction\n## Retrenchment and fixed-term offers\n## CCMA referral and main arbitration award\n## Review and variation ruling\n## Consolidated hearing and jurisdictional issues\n### Main award review grounds","[{\"question\":\"What employment arrangement led to the dispute in JR2165/18?\",\"answer\":\"Unilever retrenched packers in March 2017, then offered fixed-term contracts starting 1 April 2017, with flexible hours and exclusions from certain schemes. The affected employees continued working without signing the written fixed-term contracts.\"},{\"question\":\"What did the CCMA commissioner decide in the main arbitration award?\",\"answer\":\"The commissioner found that no valid written fixed-term contract existed as required under section 198D, and therefore the employees were deemed to be permanent from April 2017, with associated benefits and remuneration parity.\"},{\"question\":\"Which main issues did the Labour Court address first?\",\"answer\":\"The court considered the main award review application first because Unilever raised two jurisdictional points, which could dispose of all three matters.\"}]","27 October 2020 - Johannesburg - JR2165-18 - Unilever South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Elizabeth Lerumo N.O. & others | PDF",1791030260]