The LAC found that the Commissioner`s decision was legal and lawful, as she had personally reconsidered the appeal and was nevertheless empowered by law to delegate her powers. In addition, it found that Mokgatlha was bound by the transfer collective agreement. The Lake justified that decision by the fact that the collective agreement is valid within the meaning of Article 213 of the LRA and is therefore binding on Mokgatlha under Article 23(1)(b) of the LRA. In addition, the LAC found that this was a consequence of membership in a trade union where one willingly transfers one`s rights and that that union is instructed to conclude advantageous agreements on its behalf. It is therefore not possible to review a collective agreement, as the union has obtained a mandate from all its members to conclude the agreement. However, the LAC made it available to Mokgatlha that, if she had been a non-partisan member, she could have challenged the transfer on the grounds that she was not bound by the collective agreement. . It is always interesting to find a case where different legal fields collide, connect and diverge. One such case is Mampane N.O. among others against the National Union of Public Services and Workers of Allied and Another  2 BLLR 115 (LAC).
In 2011, when the National Lottery Council (NCPC) attempted to send new employees to their various provincial offices in response to the Lotteries Act. As a result, some employees had to be transferred to different locations. The CNPC consulted with relevant unions such as NUPSAW on the use of staff and new jobs remuneration/base salary/compensation and dues plan in Division 107 – as a province of the Free State, nupsaw challenged, on behalf of Mokgatlha, the decision of the commissioner and the head of human capital, in accordance with Section 158(1)(h) of the LRA, that the CNNPC is a state organ and that its decisions could be taken not only within the framework of the LRA, but also with respect to paja. . . .