NINE ousted judges’ clerks, who were told by the Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ) that their fixed-term contracts would come to an end at the end of December last year, had received a lifeline from the Labour Court.
The court ordered that their contracts would remain in force pending the outcome of an unfair labour practice referral to the bargaining council.
The applicants are all judges’ secretaries, employed by the Office of the Chief Justice at the high courts in Pretoria and Johannesburg.
They have been fighting to retain their jobs since last year after the OCJ gave them notice that come the end of last year, they will no longer be employed.
They turned to the Labour Court on an urgent basis shortly before the end of last year, when the court gave them a temporary reprieve.
The Labour Court now issued its reasons for granting that order. The nine applicants said that they have been employed on “rolling” fixed-term contracts of employment for years.
The first applicant, Susanna Naude, had been working as a judge’s clerk for more than 16 years, since May 2008, while the others have worked in this capacity ranging between 14 and seven years.
Over the years, the applicants’ contracts were always renewed, although they were fixed-term contracts. They were, however, after all these years told that all the fixed-term contracts were due to expire on December 31.
The applicants told the court that at the end of August last year, the OCJ gave notice that the contracts will not be renewed this year and the office then advertised their posts. In giving reasons for this, the OCJ explained that the role of a judge’s secretary has evolved.
An ad hoc judges’ committee established to evaluate the role of judges’ clerks recommended the appointment of secretaries with legal qualifications who would serve on a fixed-term basis.
The committee said this is so that they can, as part of their clerical duties, provide focused legal support to their judges.
This model supports both the operational efficiency of judges and the professional growth of young law graduates, the OCJ said.
The office said in an affidavit that in accordance with the government’s strategic priority of creating employment opportunities for the youth, which includes the stipulated target of 30% youth employment, the OCJ has undertaken measures to address challenges in meeting this mandate.
In response, the Gauteng Division initiated a targeted intervention to facilitate job creation and youth graduate employment.
Consequently, in October last year, the OCJ advertised 64 positions as part of its graduate recruitment scheme for judges’ secretaries.
The court was told that the judges’ committee advised that the judges’ secretaries’ roles should be fixed-term appointments, without indefinite extensions.
The applicants argued that they reasonably expected the OCJ to renew their fixed-term contracts of employment or retain them on an indefinite basis given the history of their employment as judges’ clerks.
The Labour Court said the way the applicants’ employment was ended was glaringly unfair. The court added that over the years, their contracts were extended with the result that they ended up working for many years and probably developed a sense of security of employment.
“It is highly questionable in law that employers may ‘dismiss’ employees as a means of attaining their equity targets,” the court said.
It added that it is unfair that they must face unemployment on short notice for “highly questionable reasons”.
zelda.venter@inl.co.za