In the most recent case, Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union u.a. v Chamber of Mines of South Africa and Others (JA103/2014)  ZALAC 11 (24 March 2016), the Labour Court was confronted with amCU`s assertion that it and its members were not bound by a collective agreement concluded by employers and trade unions within the meaning of section 23 of the Employment Relations Act (LRA). The agreement is accepted by implicit means arising from trips and customs in the area. The term “material matters” has been defined in the Constitution as “any matter of mutual interest or any matter related to the conditions of work and employment of workers or to a material agreement between the SAA and trade unions or to other matters having financial implications not covered by workers` employment contracts”. The courts have already found that the LRA has a clear preference for centralized collective bargaining in which the majority parties negotiate and enter into collective agreements in a sector or company (employers and unions) on behalf of all other parties in that sector or workplace. On the contrary, the Chamber of Mines was able to provide clear evidence that it was not a bargaining council within the meaning of the LRA and that, therefore, the collective agreement concluded between the employers and the other unions could not be extended by the Minister within the meaning of section 32. Section 23 allowed employers and unions to extend a collective agreement to non-parties if those non-parties are mentioned in the agreement, if the agreement is expressly binding on those non-parties, and if the union (or unions) that are parties to the agreement represents the majority of the workers employed by the employer in a given workplace. Collective agreements may be implicitly or explicitly incorporated into individual employment contracts. The persons explicitly associated with it are usually made by a reference to the collective agreement in the employment contract. This view is explained by the fact that the AMCU was mainly present in some of the mines, which had the consequence, as amcu argued, that, since each mine constituted a separate workplace, the collective agreements concluded between the employers and the other unions of the Chamber of Mines could not be extended to the AMCU and its members in the mines, in which it was in the majority. I mainly focus on licensing, procurement and purchasing agreements in the field of information technology, as well as labour law, corporate law and issues related to marketing and IPR. According to AMCU, this resulted in the Minister not renewing the agreement between the employers and other unions and that he and its members are not bound by its provisions. The collective agreement established that “food matters are operating costs intended to feed service employees and therefore do not constitute a condition of employment.” Therefore, the “meal” allowance should be treated in the MCF and not in the NBF.
The collective agreement applicable in a sector of activity can also be found through sectoral and professional principles. According to the first, the collective agreement applicable to the main sector of activity also applies to activities that have nothing to do with the main activity. An example is intended to illustrate this principle. . . .