The AMCU also argued (opportunistic, it seems, that the Chamber of Mines is the equivalent of a bargaining council established under the LRA) and that, therefore, only the Minister has the power to extend the provisions of a collective agreement to non-parties within the meaning of Section 32 of the LRA. According to the AMCU, the result is that the agreement between employers and other unions is not renewed and is not bound by its provisions. The AMCU also raised a constitutional challenge to Section 23, in which it argued that the provision read in Section 65 of the LRA and the definition of “workplace” violated its rights to collective bargaining and strike action. The Court also found that AMCU clearly did not distinguish between the provisions of Sections 23 and 32 of the LRA. Section 32 reviewed the extension of collective agreements reached at a bargaining council, while Section 23 allowed for the extension of collective agreements concluded outside a bargaining board, either at the enterprise level or at the sectoral level. The LRA provides support mechanisms for this process. Section 32 of the LRA allows the Minister of Labour to extend, in certain circumstances, a collective agreement in a collective agreement to non-parties in the sector, while Section 23 allows the parties themselves to extend the agreements to non-parties (outside of a bargaining council) in the workplace if certain conditions are met. The Court also found that the extension of collective agreements on the basis of the maintenance of a majority is both reasonable and reasonable, as it guarantees peace in the workplace. The courts have already found that the LRA has a clear preference for centralized collective bargaining, in which majority parties in an industrial or professional enterprise (employers and unions) negotiate collective agreements on behalf of all other parties in this sector or in the workplace and enter into collective agreements. Section 23 allowed employers and unions to extend a collective agreement to non-parties when those non-parties are mentioned in the agreement, where the agreement expressly binds those non-parties, and when the union (or unions) that are contracting parties represents the majority of workers employed by the employer in a specified workplace. In the most recent case of the Mine Workers Association and the Construction and Others Union,/Chambers of Mines of South Africa and Others (JA103/2014)  ZALAC 11 (24).
The labour tribunal was confronted with the AMCU`s assertion that it and its members are not bound by a collective agreement between employers and unions within the meaning of Section 23 of the Labour Relations Act (“LRA”). On the other hand, the Chamber of Mines and the various employers argued that all of their mines together constituted a single job and that, to that end, the AuCU had only a minority presence in that workplace. It is considered that a collective agreement is not provided for by the union and the employer as an enforceable contract, unless it is agreements negotiated between one or more unions and employers` organizations and covering one or more of the following requirements: one exception to these requirements is: when the Central Arbitration Committee of the Central Arbitration Commission makes a legal statement that a union is recognized as having the right to bargain collective agreements on behalf of a certain unit of employees (see item 31 of TULR`s A1 list (C)A 1992) and, therefore, they were able to extend any collective agreement with the majority unions in the workplace. The reason for this view was that the AMCU had a majority interest in certain mines and that, as amCU argued, each mine being a separate workplace, not all collective agreements between employers and other unions in the Chamber of Mines could be extended to AMCU and its members in mines where it had a majority interest.