[22] Section 198B (2)c) of the LRA provides that s198B, which essentially governs fixed-term contracts for workers earning less than a regulated income limit, does not apply to “a worker employed under a fixed-term contract authorized by law, sectoral clause or collective agreement.” (There are also other cited cases in which the provision is not applicable, but which are not relevant to the facts of this case).) Therefore, if it were discovered that the collective agreement does not apply to the complainant`s members, it would simply mean that the provisions of the section would apply to members earning less than the income threshold prescribed in S198B (2) c). However, this does not mean that their contracts were or are not automatically cancelled, nor that their duration has been or is indefinite. [16] In accordance with the appeal, the applicant`s appeal is short. It argues in essence that the “labour tribunal`s decision that sections 198B (3) and 5 of the LRA are not applicable and that these provisions were considered to be erroneous in section 198B (2)c) was not applicable; and that it also provided legal assistance in its “related finding” that the collective agreement is binding on the applicant to the appeal and its members, to the extent that it can be extended to it within the meaning of Article 23 of the LRA. It can only be extended to non-parties within the meaning of the LRA`s s32. The complainant`s argument was therefore very narrow in her compass. [3] There was no question that Transnet had benefited from fixed-term contracts for part of its staff. These contracts have generally been renewed gradually. On December 15, 2014, transnet entered into a collective agreement at Transnet`s bargaining council governing the terms of their temporary workers with the third and fourth respondents who were then the majority unions in their workplace. The parties to the agreement stated that they do not bind themselves and the members of the trade union parties, but “[a]temporary unity of collective agreements at Transnet Soc Limited, including non-union parties,” (emphasis added). These include the workers who were members of the complainant, although neither the complainant, who had no organizational rights at Transnet, nor her members were involved in the collective agreement at the time of its conclusion. These issues have not been resolved and numsa therefore referred to a dispute over mutual interest in the bargaining council. When NUMSA issued its strike notice, Transnet responded by announcing its intention to exclude the following requests: – [14] The Labour Tribunal found that the Transnet Bargaining Board was a “bargaining board,” as read in S213 with LRA s27; that fixed-term contracts were valid and applicable and that 198B of the LRA had not changed the position of the common law; that the collective agreement is a “collective agreement” as stipulated in 198B (2) c), and that the collective agreement allowed for fixed-term contracts for which Transnet employees worked; that the collective agreement was effectively extended to non-parties within the meaning of the LRA`s23, although it was agreed at a bargaining council that the parties were bound alternatively because the contract was clearly bound to its terms and they were also bound, among other things, on the basis of the majority principle.