In the case of Greyling v George Randell High School, Mr. Greyling brought a lawsuit against his former employer, the School, claiming that he was unlawfully dismissed. The School argued that there was an oral agreement to cancel the contract and that there were factual disputes that should be resolved in a civil court. The court found that the second contract between Mr. Greyling and the School was invalid and that there was no valid contract between the parties. The court also found that Mr. Greyling failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claim for damages. The court dismissed the application and ordered Mr. Greyling to pay two-thirds of the School's costs. The court emphasized the need for a constructive approach and criticized the School for raising technical preliminary points. The court also discussed the jurisdiction of the Labour Appeal Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal in labor matters, stating that the Labour Appeal Court is the final appeal court for labor matters. Overall, the court concluded that there was no merit in Mr. Greyling's claim and that the School's actions contributed to the confusion and unnecessary litigation.

breach of contract need to carefully consider the jurisdiction of the court, the factors to be considered when ordering a referral for oral evidence, the foreseeability of material disputes of fact, and the conflicting jurisprudence of the Labour Appeal Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal.Mr. Greyling has filed a lawsuit against his former employer, the School, claiming that he was unlawfully dismissed. He argues that the School terminated his fixed-term contract before he could start working and he is seeking damages for the full duration of the contract. The School, however, argues that they reached an oral agreement with Mr. Greyling to cancel the contract. They also claim that there are factual disputes that should be resolved in a civil court, not the Labour Court. The School requests that the application be dismissed.Mr. Greyling was initially employed by the School on a fixed-term contract from May 1, 2021, until December 31, 2021. They then entered into a further fixed-term contract from January 1, 2022, until December 31, 2022. However, there is a dispute regarding an interaction that took place on December 15, 2021, where Mr. Greyling alleges that he was informed by the principal of the School that the second contract was invalid and that his employment would end on December 31, 2021. The School argues that there was an oral agreement made in early December 2021 due to disciplinary proceedings. The court found that Mr. Greyling failed to prove any damages.In this court judgment, Mr Greyling had a second contract with the School but was denied access to the premises when the school reopened. Mr Greyling argues that he was entitled to render services under the second contract, while the School claims that the contract was cancelled orally. The School raised two preliminary points, but ultimately conceded that any defect in the citation of the School Governing Body could be remedied by the Court.In this court judgment, the court addresses two preliminary points raised by the School. The first point is regarding lis alibi pendens, which refers to a dispute pending before another commission. The court determines that the dispute before the court is different from the one before the commission, and therefore, the defense of lis alibi pendens does not apply. The second point concerns the citation of the School in the case, with the School arguing that the wrong entity was cited. The court rejects this argument, stating that the correct entity was cited.In this court judgment, it is determined that the School Governing Body (SGB) should have been joined in the proceedings instead of being sued. The contracts given to Mr Greyling inaccurately stated that he was employed by the School, when in fact he was employed by the SGB. The error in the citation should not be held against Mr Greyling, as it was the School's responsibility. The School has indicated that it has no issue with the court rectifying the error.In the case of Archer v Public School Pinelands High School and Others, the court found that the School governing body (SGB) is responsible for the governance of the School, including employing individuals who are not employed by the Department of Basic Education. The court noted that the School admitted both the first and second contracts, and the chairperson of the SGB confirmed that she authorized the conclusion of the second contract. The School's acceptance of the second contract's validity was evident from their conduct, as they planned a disciplinary hearing for January 2022.The court judgment discusses the validity of a second contract between Mr. Greyling and the School. The School argues that the second contract was not witnessed or dated, but the court states that these factors are not necessary for a contract to be valid. The School also mistakenly claimed that the second contract was invalid, but later corrected this statement. The court ultimately concludes that the second contract was validly concluded but later cancelled.The court found that there was no valid contract between the parties and that the second contract had been cancelled, rather than being inherently invalid. The school's reference to a written warning issued to Mr Greyling was deemed irrelevant and an unfair attempt to portray him negatively. The court also noted that Ms Solani's affidavit, which provided an overview of the matter, lacked personal knowledge of the exchanges between Mr Greyling and Ms Bester.The Applicant was employed by the SGB as an educator with a fixed contract from May 1, 2021, to December 31, 2021. It was agreed that the contract would automatically terminate on December 31, 2021. In December 2021, the Applicant committed gross misconduct, witnessed by several staff members and recorded on CCTV. Instead of initiating a disciplinary enquiry, it was agreed that the Applicant's contract would expire on December 31, 2021. A letter confirming the contract's expiration was sent on December 15, 2021. On January 3, 2022, the Applicant sent an email to the Respondent.The court judgment involves a situation where an employee left a meeting before it ended, which was seen as disrespectful. The employee complained that the staff were being vindictive and making fun of him. The manager investigated the matter but concluded that no further action was needed. The manager decided to address the situation through informal discussion and counseling.On December 10, 2021, Mr. Greyling is accused of committing serious misconduct in relation to a colleague testing positive for Covid-19. Ms. Bester informed the staff about the positive case and advised them to get tested if necessary. However, Mr. Greyling objected to her comment and requested that the Department of Health be contacted. He became loud and disrespectful towards Ms. Bester, admitting that he had worked closely with the affected staff member without wearing a mask. He then stormed out of the office, criticizing Ms. Bester and threatening to close the school.Summary:

The court judgment describes an incident where the Applicant shouted and made threats towards staff members at a school. The Applicant also made derogatory comments about the school's management on social media. The Applicant later submitted a medical certificate for sick leave.The court judgment states that the applicant had posted negative comments about the principal of the school on social media, which violated the school's Code of Conduct. The principal called the applicant to a meeting and expressed her disappointment in his behavior. She informed him that he could either face dismissal through a disciplinary hearing or find employment elsewhere. The applicant chose to terminate his contract and requested a reference letter stating that his departure was due to the expiration of his contract. The letter was drafted to avoid questions about the reasons for his departure.In this court judgment, it is stated that the Applicant agreed to a course of action and thanked the person involved for their support. The details of an exchange between Mr Greyling and Ms Bester are disputed, but it is agreed that Ms Bester gave Mr Greyling a letter of reference. The School produced affidavits from three staff members supporting Ms Bester's version of events.In this court judgment, the dispute revolves around Mr. Greyling's request for a reference letter based on his work performance, specifically mentioning his Grade 12 History class. The school argues that a second contract was cancelled orally to avoid possible dismissal for misconduct, and Mr. Greyling was provided with a letter explaining the end of his employment. Mr. Greyling disputes this and claims he was not given a proper explanation. He requested a more detailed reference letter to secure alternative employment.In this court judgment, it is stated that the second contract of employment between Mr. Greyling and the School was deemed invalid. Mr. Greyling was given a letter stating that his last day of service would be on December 31, 2021. On January 17, 2022, Mr. Greyling attempted to return to the School but was denied entry and his services were rejected. The court notes that if the second contract was still valid on January 17, the School's refusal to receive Mr. Greyling would be a breach of contract. Mr. Greyling was locked out of the School gate and informed by the caretaker that he was prohibited from entering the premises. The court references previous cases regarding certificates of service as outlined in the Basic Conditions of Employment Act.The court judgment states that the respondent advised the claimant that their second contract was invalid and provided a letter stating that the claimant's employment would end on 31 December 2021. The claimant did not address the allegations of misconduct and impending disciplinary action in their initial affidavit, claiming that they were fabrications. In their response affidavit, the claimant denied the allegations of misconduct and argued that they were mistreated by other staff members. They also expressed concerns about the school's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.This court judgment is not about whether the employee, Mr Greyling, was guilty of misconduct or if the trust relationship between him and the school had broken down. It is about whether Mr Greyling agreed to leave the school or if his employment contract was unilaterally terminated by the school. The allegations of misconduct and threat of disciplinary proceedings are relevant to evaluating the reasons why Mr Greyling was not allowed onto the premises of the school. The probabilities of the respective versions presented by Mr Greyling and the school will be considered in determining if there should be a resolution.This Court Judgment discusses the principles applicable to application proceedings in which factual disputes are not resolved, but rather legal issues are determined based on agreed upon facts. The judgment cites previ

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, GQEBERHA Reportable Case No. PR 11/22 In the matter between  ROY GREYLING Applicant and GEORGE RANDELL HIGH SCHOOL Respondent Heard  6 July 2022 Delivered  This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the Applicant and the Respondent

Greyling v George Randell High School (PR11/22) [2023] Labour Court (27 February 2023)