For the purposes of the definition in section 213, the test for determining whether two or more jobs are held by the same employer requires consideration of their size, function or organization. The meaning given to a word in relation to this section applies to the entire law, unless the context in which it is used indicates otherwise (AMCU vs. Chamber of Mines acting in its own name &obo Harmony Gold Mining supra by 49-51). The finding that the legal definition applies to the concept of `workplace` means that the extension of collective agreements within the meaning of Article 23(1)(d) covers all staff, irrespectless of geographical location. As decided by the Constitutional Court, the “place of work” provided for in Article 23(1)(d) is the same as that provided for in Article 213. Although the General Court did not take these factors into account individually, the judgment shows that they were taken into consideration. The restriction imposed by the provision does not categorically remove the right and prorogation does not preclude the minority from joining or participating in the collective bargaining process (Cheadle “Collective bargaining and the LRA” 2005 (9) 2 Law, Democracy & Development 153). It simply means that there will be no strike if there is disagreement on the issues governed by the collective agreement. This clause is called the peace clause in favour of the employer (Rautenbach “The Constitutionality of the legal authorization to conclude collective agreements obliging non-parties to non-strike” 2017 (4) ZAR 863). Pienaar and Badenhorst postulate that there are, in this particular case, no less restrictive means to achieve the objectives of orderly collective bargaining (Pienaar & Badenhorst “Minority unions are bound by extended collective agreements” Employment warning available in May 2015 under www.cliffedekker hofmeyr.com/export/sites/cdh/en/news/publications/2015/employment/downloads/Employment-Alert-18-May-2015.pdf (called 01.06.2018). Rautenbach argues that the addition of a requirement for administrative authorisation by an executive or administrative body similar to the Article 32 procedure would be a less intrusive possibility of restricting that right (Rautenbach 864-865). This author argues that administrative control, although very limited, serves as procedural protection, since the exercise of this option must be in accordance with the rules of the law of admissibility and must not infringe the right to equitable administrative action (ibid.
. . .