The argument that the collective agreement that the parties to the agreement purported to extend to the non-parties cannot be extended to Transnet`s version of the LRA s23 can therefore be justified. The result of such a finding would mean that the collective agreement is not binding on non-parties, including minority unions, who were not parties to this agreement and did not sign it at a later date. The difficulty faced here by the applicant naturally lies in the fact that it argues, in its founding documents, that its members entered into standard contracts with Transnet with fixed-term contracts and that they have attached a copy of a standard contract in which it is the justification for its declaration of incorporation of the insurance under oath. One of the standard conditions of this contract is that the terms of the contract are governed by the collective agreement. If this is the case, it is likely that the members of the applicant who have entered into such a contract are not bound by their alleged extension to the LRA s23, but by their individual consent. As tempting as a thorough examination and a definitive definition of the point on the scope and binding force of the collective agreement may seem, as discreet and not decisive in this appeal. I do not think that this is an appropriate reason for deciding this point in light of the other weaknesses, decisive and fundamental, in the applicant`s case.  The applicant was wrong to believe that a positive response to the point mentioned in the previous point was the sphere of money and that it was decisive for the application. One illusion was that if the collective agreement did not apply to their members, the fixed-term contracts of their members were automatically inoperative and therefore their periods of employment were unlimited.  The applicant did not explicitly argue that it was intro on behalf of its members who earned less than the prescribed income limit, as set out in s198B, but only that the section appeared to apply to all fixed-term employment contracts. In support of its assertions of the applicability of s198B, it relies on a copy of a fixed-term employment contract allegedly used by Transnet by Transnet, which essentially contradicts its assertion that the collective agreement did not involve its members and supports the respondent`s claim that S198B is not applicable. One of the standard conditions of this contract is that the terms of the fixed-term contract are governed by the collective agreement.
When their members entered into this standard contract, as the applicant argued, they included the collective agreement in their reference fixed-term contracts and are bound by their consent to the collective agreement. If the collective agreement binds them, the s198B act is not applicable, as provided for by the LRA in 198B (2) c).  With respect to the extension of the collective agreement, the assertion that Transnet`s bargaining board, as set out in S213, read by LRA s27, and that the collective agreement was concluded within that board, can only be renewed with respect to the LRA`s s32 and not with respect to s23. This reasoning is found in a unanimous judgment of the Court of Justice in a recent decision, which was also challenged before the Constitutional Court. Neither the representatives of the parties, nor the Court of Justice, nor the Court of Justice seem to know this. At the hearing, counsel for both parties was alerted to the diktat.  In accordance with the appeal, the applicant`s appeal is short.