On the contrary, the section should not, so to speak, replace the requirements of Section 32 in the area of local government. The South African Local Government Association (SALGA) is an organization created within the meaning of Section 2 of OLGA. One of SALGA`s tasks and mandates is to establish the relationship between its members and collaborators within the meaning of Section 213 of the LRA. SALGA is a part of SALGBC. In casu, SALGA`s collective agreement was concluded. Thus, Section 71 (3) of the MSA applies in this case only to the extent that the sixth respondent does not avoid respect for the law, simply because he is not a party and is not yet a signatory to the MOU. 71 (3). Municipalities must respect all collective agreements concluded by local authorities as part of their mandate on behalf of local authorities on the bargaining council established for municipalities.  With respect to the benefits of the audit. As always, the starting block is the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. For the purposes of this case, Section 23 is a good starting point. In accordance with section 23, paragraph 2, every worker has the right to form a union and join a union. On this basis, it is clear that the right to join a trade union is an individual right of workers.
The right to freedom of association is linked to this individual right of workers. Once again, the right to connect freely is an individual right. The last place to visit is section 23, paragraph 5, which allows any union to have the right to negotiate collective agreements. a national law can be passed to regulate collective bargaining.  The arbitrator preferred an interpretation that should not infringe the fundamental rights of MATUSA and its members. Such an interpretation cannot be faulted by a review court. Since the Court does not have an application for disability under the provisions of the collective agreement, it is not in a position to declare the disability of any of the provisions unenforceable and legally unenforceable. I do not object to the assertion that the arbitrator declared the MOU or its contentious clauses illegal and therefore adopted it in an area for which he is not competent. Their conclusion was simply that the DP cannot be applied to MATUSA and its members. It is trite that no law can restrict a right enshrined in the Bill of Rights.