fixed term contractpermanent employmentnovationstatutory instrumentcollective bargaining agreement
Tags
fixed term contractspermanent employmentnovationcollective bargaining agreement
legislation
Statutes Cited
Labour Act
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Whether fixed term contracts signed after employees reached the 60-month threshold legally novated their permanent employment contracts","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Employees reaching 60 months threshold and signing subsequent fixed term contracts"}
{"issue_text":"Whether a Collective Bargaining Agreement can alter common law principles of novation","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Section 33 of Statutory Instrument 147 of 2018"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the arbitrator erred in finding that permanent contracts could not be terminated by novation","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Arbitrator's decision and reasoning"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The appellant employed respondents on repeated fixed term contracts that exceeded 60 months continuous service, which under Statutory Instrument 147 of 2018 deemed them permanent employees. After reaching the 60-month threshold, each respondent signed new fixed term contracts. The arbitrator found these subsequent contracts unlawful and upheld the permanent employment status.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases