I do not read the Free Market Foundation (FMF) as definitive as to whether a collective agreement can be reviewed under paJA. Murphy J supra`s views were obiter and show that collective agreements are not exempt from judicial review and review. The FMF has been primarily involved in two crucial issues. The first was the nature and extent of judicial review that was available with respect to decisions and actions relating to the extension of collective agreements from the collective agreement to non-parties. The second question is whether the negotiating councils and the Minister were obliged to act in the public interest for the extension of such agreements. The answer to the first question depended to some extent on whether the decisions and remedies involved constituted an “administrative measure” within the meaning of PAJA and could therefore be reconsidered for the reasons mentioned in point 6 of the PAJA. In paragraph 118 of the FMF, Murphy J stated that the Collective Dismissals Act 223/1991 provides for special information and negotiation procedures with trade unions before the end of contracts, as well as specific compensation for workers who will be dismissed in accordance with EU directives.  One of the LRA`s objectives is to create a framework in which workers and their trade union, employer and employer organizations can collectively negotiate wages, terms of employment and other issues of common interest.  A collective agreement is a written agreement on the terms of employment or any other matter of common interest entered into by one or more registered unions on the one hand and one or more employers on the other; One or more registered employer organizations; one or more employers and one or more registered employer organizations.  (a) the parties to the collective agreement who are also parties to the collective agreement; 6. (a) Any provision of a collective agreement under subsection (4) that was concluded at the time or after the 2007 Public Service Amendment Act began is considered to be a decision made by the Minister pursuant to Section 3, paragraph 5, with respect to the terms of service of workers designated under this Act.
Collective agreements and other instruments/policies are relevant to the appeal: many benefits to promote worker training have been introduced since 1973 by national collective agreements. Workers are entitled to a certain number of hours of paid leave (150 usually up to 250 hours maximum for workers who require primary training) to attend or not in public or certified schools. This agreement applies only to officers of the Department of Justice and the Attorney General, Department of Corrections, who are assigned to a 6/3 rotation.  Section 5 (4) of the Public Service Act would require that the actions of a public servant sign the sanctity and primacy of collective agreements to the extent that a public servant cannot violate the provision of the collective agreement. S 5 (6) point a) is to give more impetus to collective agreements without abstaining from its essential provisions. The Minister of the DPSA, through the incentive policy framework, sought to clarify or supplement the terms of the collective agreement in paragraph 6 point (b) S 5. Dismissals on the basis of political opinion, union membership, gender, race, language or religious affiliation are null and void. In addition, members of workers` committees may be dismissed or transferred for one year without the authorization of the relevant regional trade union organization (Article 3, Law 108; this law also applies to directors and domestic workers) after the termination of their duties on the committee. Similarly, dismissal on the cause of pregnancy, where dismissal occurred between the conception and the end of the legal period of absence of the worker on leave of delivery or leave without pay until the age of one year of the child, is expressly prohibited.