In the minority judgment, Cachalia AJ (Froneman J. agrees) that the case was controversial, but did not believe it was in the interests of justice to hear the case. The dispute between the parties had not been live since February 2013. Popcru must have become aware of the controversy in the case in 2013, when the dispute was considered by the labour court. SACOSWU states that in 2015 it became aware of this and did not inform the CCMA of the applicability of Section 21 (8C) of the LRA in a dispute with POPCRU. Both parties are required to inform the labour tribunal and the CCMA and have not acted in this area and the hearing of the case would tolerate the conduct of the parties. The interpretation of Section 18 would not have a restoration effect on the parties. The interpretation of Section 18 will have an even broader impact, as will the dispute over the achievement of section 18 threshold agreements is expected to arise in the future, as will undoubtedly be the case, and the new threshold agreement legislation, which now includes Section 21, paragraph 8, and in particular Sections 21 (8A) and 21 (8C). , will apply. Cachalia AJ reportedly rejected the request for leave.  This model has no value. The collective agreement that establishes a representative coating is not permitted under Section 23.
It is Section 18 that gives the employer and the majority union the right to enter into such an agreement. If the prevailing Section 20 authorizes the conclusion of a collective agreement between an employer and a minority union where there is an agreement under Section 18, it is not possible to say that Section 23 excludes the conclusion of that agreement. Section 23 does not specify the scope and content of Section 18 or a collective agreement within the meaning of the latter collective agreement. In addition, section 23 does not create any prohibition of any kind. All it does is identify the parties involved in a collective agreement. For workers who earn a living above the threshold, the employer is therefore in the same situation that it cannot demand, but must also negotiate. Before the Constitutional Court, the central dispute between the parties concerns the correct interpretation of Articles 18 and 20 of the LRA. Popcru argues that a collective agreement within the meaning of Section 18 of the LRA, within the meaning of Section 23 of the LRA, is binding on all parties and other workers and unions who do not participate in the threshold agreement.