Johannesburg — SPRINGBOK player Victor Matfield's strong position on the rugby field -- as the Boks prepare to face England this week -- is less secure in the legal arena as the dispute between Matfield and his employer, SA Rugby, continues.

In the Johannesburg Labour Court yesterday, counsel for SA Rugby appealed against the court's previous decision to allow Matfield to keep his share of the R1m awarded to him by the CCMA in 2004.

The protracted legal battle between SA Rugby and players Victor Matfield, Richard Bands and Christo Bezuidenhout, has been raging since 2004.

The CCMA awarded the three players R1m for loss of earnings, when their fixed-term contracts were not renewed despite their strong performances in the 2003 Rugby World Cup.

The monetary sum awarded was based on the minimum retainer the players would have expected in their new contracts.

Despite promises of a future career with the Springboks, made by former coach Rudolph Straeuli, SA Rugby argued that their contractual obligation to Bands and Bezuidenhout was for the temporary, three-month period of the World Cup.

On appeal to the Labour Court by SA Rugby the R300000 sum awarded to Bands and Bezuidenhout was withdrawn. Matfield's R400000 award was upheld.

Senior counsel for SA Rugby argued that Mat field's supplementary contract with SA Rugby undermined his compensation claim and subsequent award.

Counsel argued that the CCMA "clearly erred grievously".

Counsel for Bands and Bezuidenhout argued that the players had a reasonable expectation that their contracts would be renewed.

Counsel argued that "they were the best players in the world. Why would they not have the expectation SA Rugby isn't going to recognise that.

"In fairness to the players it was necessary for the employer (SA Rugby) to go through a procedure to dispel this expectation."

The case has been argued by the player's counsel on the basis of Section 186 (1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, stating "an employee reasonably expected the employer to renew a fixed term contract of employment on the same or similar terms but the employer ... did not renew it".

SA Rugby's attorney Anton Steenkamp said that regardless of which party the judgment favours , yesterday's proceedings "should be the end of the matter".

He said that he doubted the matter would make it to the Supreme Court of Appeal.