Perhaps the fact that, as the Commissioner said, the fact that the payment of overtime on public holidays and, I add, the overtime payment for Sunday debits should not have given the Commissioner a red light, since the only reasonable conclusion would be that the use of the term „normal overtime“ would not be related to the type of overtime. , as stipulated in the 2007 agreement, but to arbitrate the exclusion of regular or regular overtime, including all forms of overtime. The commissioner could have done better.  I think there is no uncertainty about the words and wording used in Article 5, there is certainly no ambiguity that I can imagine if I do not read, like the Commissioner, the phrase „normal overtime“ and I refuse. But, as I said, even if that sentence was not so clear, there was nothing to prevent the Commissioner from changing the sentence according to the intent of the parties. In addition, as Coopers said, we must also consider the context and relevance and the origin of the treaty.  There is no doubt that the purpose of the 2010 agreement was to end the administrative burden associated with the three types of overtime included in the 2007 agreement, particularly where recording, checking and recording the number of overtime hours worked during major events was a nightmare and, therefore, almost manageable. „This agreement does not nullify or replace the 2007 SSSBC 4 agreement. However, where the converted non-pension special overtime allowance is payable, the standard overtime rule is not applicable. (My center of gravity).  This administrative process of recording, checking and recording overtime quickly proved quite tedious for SAPS, particularly at major sporting events, conferences, summits and other events of national importance („special events“) where large numbers of people had to work overtime.
As a solution to these administrative headaches, SAPS and respondents concluded an agreement 4 of 2009 on April 14, 2009 that introduced a special daily allowance for police duties at special events.  On the other hand, the applicant argued that the term „normal overtime“ as it appears in Article 5 could not be construed as the type of overtime provided for in the 2007 agreement, but that the word „normal“ should have its clear grammatical meaning as a synonym for the word „usual or usual“ in the oxford English Dictionary. In addition, the context and purpose of the collective agreement as a whole, in addition to the overt importance of Article 5, indicated that the parties never intended to maintain the other types of overtime provided for in the 2007 agreement, since this is the purpose of the 2010 collective agreement that, in order to reduce the administrative burden that was taken into account by an employee. must be checked and recorded. Since they were unable to resolve their dispute by adopting differing interpretations, the parties referred the matter to the first appeal for interpretation of section 5.  There is another reason why the Court of Justice should not lose sight of the contextual and useful interpretation of the sentence, particularly section 5 of the sentence, which is that it is a collective agreement that must be interpreted against ordinary trade agreements in order to promote an effective, fair and timely settlement of labour disputes.  I therefore agreed with Froneman DJP`s (as it was at the time) in the northeastern Capes forest decision, which means that the primary objectives of the LRA are better served by a practical approach to the interpretation and application of the 2010 collective agreement than purely commercial principles.