Section 23, paragraph 1, point d), is one of the many sections of the L. ARS that govern the legislative decision of the majority vote. This decision is based on Parliament`s assumption that it would best serve the LRA`s priority objectives in labour peace and orderly collective bargaining (Aunde South Africa (Pty) Ltd/NUMSA  10 BLLR 945 (LAC) Par. 32; see Cohen «Limiting the organizational rights of minority unions: POPCRU/Ledwaba 2013 11 BLLR 1137 (LC)» (2014) 17.5 PER 2211. See also Roof (ed) and al Labour Relations Law (6th ed) (LexisNexis 2015) 283-284). The AMCU Tribunal`s decision showed that Section 23 (1) (d) incriminated by the LRA could withstand constitutional control, particularly when considered in connection with the LRA majority deference policy. A challenge to the provision is also a challenge to the legislative policy chosen by parliament, which has important consequences, since it concerns the entire nomenclature of the law and not just section 23, paragraph 1, point d). In any case, the union that wanted to attack the principle wanted to rely on its majority representation in some employers` mines. It is therefore a self-destructive exercise. The judgment also emphasized the constitutional importance of this provision. It showed that Section 23 (1)d) ensures that workers whose union works outside a bargaining council can continue to exercise their right to collective bargaining effectively.
The note took into account the importance of the right to strike, but it is not absolute and the restriction imposed on it is only collateral and justified in an open and democratic society. Finally, the consideration of international and foreign jurisprudence shows international recognition and acceptance of this practice. Moreover, the importance of Section 23, paragraph 1, point (d), is confirmed by its specificity, since in most EU countries certain administrative measures can be extended to whole sectors. Section 23 (1) (d) creates the possibility of expanding within an employer, but includes all employees. With respect to the meaning of a «workplace,» the Tribunal took into account arguments that deter any idea that the term used in section 23, paragraph 1, point d) could mean a single place where a worker works, since the word can be used in everyday language (paragraph 26). It was pointed out that a workstation is not the place where every employee works, as. B each employee`s office or office. On the contrary, employees work collectively. This construction is more consistent with the promotion of orderly collective bargaining than with the purpose of the law. In addition, the court stressed that functional organization is more important than location.