In order to succeed, the applicant had to prove that the Commissioner`s alleged error of law was an error that no reasonable commissioner would have made. The applicant submitted that the Commissioner`s arbitration award was based on a substantial error of law that misinterpreted sections 28, 33, 35, 37 and 43 of the LRA. The award does not take into account the fact that: (a) respondents are not public servants; (b) the respondents are not within the scope of the bargaining council; and (c) that the arbitrator`s sentence imposes a liability or obligation that does not exist legally. She invoked the decision of the Vermooten Labour Court.  In Vermooten, a person had entered into a consulting agreement with the government and was considered an independent contractor and not an employee of the government department.  The facts in Vermooten are very different from those before the Tribunal and the plaintiff`s appeal on this matter is clearly misplaced.  As noted above, when the CCMA reached this case, there was a consolidation of two disputes. First, the demarcation issue, which dealt with the question of whether the respondents are under the jurisdiction of the bargaining council. Second, the dispute over the interpretation and application of the agreement. (c) be assigned to the state as an employer of the public service, which is not assigned to any sector of the state`s activity as an employer.“  Two claims were referred to the CCMA. First, the demarcation issue, which dealt with whether the respondents were within the jurisdiction of the bargaining board. Second, the dispute over the interpretation and application of the agreement. The disputes were consolidated and the Commissioner found that the respondents were public service workers and were within the jurisdiction of the Bargaining Council.
As a result, interviewees were entitled to the Squire Skill Allowance provided for in the agreement. (c) members of a registered union, which is a party to the collective agreement, and employers who are members of a registered employer organization that is such a party when the collective agreement governs the collective agreement –  For the above reasons, it is clear that the disputed agreement on the granting of the limited qualification allowance is the applicant (as an employer) and the three social partners registered on behalf of their members on behalf of the board of directors , including denosa and trade unions. Sama. In Article 3 of the agreement, medical specialists were identified as part of the occupational category that must pay the remuneration. On behalf of the applicant, interviewees performed the duties of senior and principal specialist in the various medical services of provincial hospitals and therefore qualified for the payment of the limited qualification allowance.  Second, it submitted that the respondents were not on the bargaining board`s register because they were not agents of the crown and were therefore not entitled to the benefits of a collective agreement. The fact that the respondents have performed part of their duties in provincial hospitals and provides health care on behalf of the department does not necessarily mean that they are public servants or are employed in the public service.