The note took into account the importance of the right to strike, but that it is not absolute and that the restriction imposed on it only justifies security and in an open and democratic society. Finally, taking into account international and foreign jurisprudence shows the international recognition and acceptance of the practice. It also confirms the importance of Section 23(1)(d) of its specificity, given that, in most EU countries, certain administrative measures may extend agreements to entire sectors. Article 23(1)(d) creates the possibility of extending within an employer, but covers all workers. In 2014, AMCU notified the three mining companies of strike notice for the same issues as the agreement. The Chamber of Mines has petitioned the Labour Court for an urgent ban on the strike. The emergency ban was imposed and on the day of return, the court upheld the order. AMCU then appealed the ban to the Labour Court and the appeal was dismissed. The case was then brought before the Constitutional Court, as the constitutionality of Article 23(1)(d)(iii) in conjunction with Article 65(3) of the Employment Relations Act was clearly challenged. Beyond the question of jurisdiction, the Constitutional Court had to take a decision on the importance of a “workplace” within the meaning of Article 23(1)(d). In addition, the Court had to rule on the constitutionality of the limitation of the right to strike, the right to collective bargaining and the right to freedom of association within the meaning of Article 23(1)(d) in conjunction with Article 65(3) of the LRA.
. . .