This is a bit off topic but relate to same, It has come under scrutiny whether or not an employee working for an employer placed by a labour broker is in fact an employee of the Temporally placement agency (labour broker) ["the TES"] or those of the employer ("the client")........... The case in reference (which seems to be the first of its kind) pertain to: Assign Services (PTY)LTD (Applicant) V sheiving & Racking (PTY)LTD (1st Respondent) and NUMSA (2nd Respondent) case: ECEL 1652/15...... The CCMA confirmed that once an employee exceed placement of 3 (Three) months at the same employer such employee will be employed by the client whereas the TES will not be deemed to have any further authority over the employee........ It must be noted that the attorneys of the applicant, in the above mentioned matter, did forward us the heads of argument from both the Applicant and the 1st Respondent drafted by the respected councils, these documents explain a great deal of the merits and reasoning in that matter, same that I intent to apply herein...........It is obvious through the above reasoning (or "question") posed by the advise seeker that he/she will be an employee of the client and not of the TES, my reasoning derive from the fact that 1. the above advise seeker indeed remain employed for a period in excess of 3 months; the amended LRA states after 3 months the employee are those of the employer "The legislator did not attempt to abolish the TES but rather to regulate matters concerning these natures" I agree with the assessment by Commissioner made herein, although, the matter at hand present somewhat different in that the employer transferred the employee to another division, it is unclear whether the employee's contract was amended with the TES, even so, the advise seeker remain an employee of the client. In so far notice is concerned, it is clear from the above advice seeker's information that. He/she made no reference to a contract with the client, it seems if the nexis (according to the parties believe) remain between the TES and the employee, were in fact it has shifted to those between the client and employee, therefore, in absence of a contract, the BCEA of 1997 will be the source of reference to the guidelines of the termination of employment, although, should the employer have more favorable conditions of termination, relating to the current situation of the advise seeker, such condition will be applicable. Since these matters are not properly ventilated in the CCMA as to yet, although a baseline reference case was concluded, it could just as easily have gone the other way, please understand that I am not against the CCMA Award but I would really like to invite opinions on this matter since it is my believe that these matters are of a very long list of matters that need further exploration. Regards Rautenbach & Associates.