A reading of ss32 and 23 in their actual context within the LRA shows that the two sections are based on two types of collective agreements. In 23, collective agreements are provided and planned outside the collective agreement committees, while s32 envisage collective agreements that are concluded on a broader basis and especially within the bargaining councils… ».   There was a dispute between Transnet and the complainant over the applicability of the collective agreement to the complainant`s members. This situation was compounded by the applicant`s lack of organisational rights in Transnet`s workplaces, which in turn appears to have been made even more complicated by the insecurity and resulting disputes over the size of its membership in these workplaces.  The Labour Tribunal found that Transnet`s bargaining board was a “bargaining board,” as provided in s213, read with LRA s27; that fixed-term contracts were valid and applicable and that 198B of the LRA had not changed the position of the common law; that the collective agreement is a “collective agreement” as stipulated in 198B (2) c), and that the collective agreement allowed for fixed-term contracts for which Transnet employees worked; that the collective agreement was effectively extended to non-parties within the meaning of the LRA`s23, although it was agreed at a bargaining council that the parties were bound alternatively because the contract was clearly bound to its terms and they were also bound, among other things, on the basis of the majority principle. The Labour Tribunal found that the applicant had not presented a reason for provisional termination, because the fixed-term contracts were valid and its automatic termination by the expression of time did not constitute dismissal. In these circumstances, there was no illegality as a result of the labour tribunal ruling, so no interdictool was proven. The Labour Tribunal also found that the provisions of s189B (13) did not apply in the absence of redundancies; and that there was no record of a case in which contracts were expected to be renewed, as provided for in LRA s186 (1) (b). The labour tribunal then dismissed the application and did not issue a cost order.
 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. It argues in essence that the “labour tribunal`s decision that sections 198B (3) and 5 of the LRA are not applicable and that these provisions were considered to be erroneous in section 198B (2)c) was not applicable; and that it also provided legal assistance in its “related finding” that the collective agreement is binding on the applicant to the appeal and its members, to the extent that it can be extended to it within the meaning of Article 23 of the LRA. It can only be extended to non-parties within the meaning of the LRA`s s32. The complainant`s argument was therefore very narrow in her compass.