“This issue underscores the need for the parties to carefully negotiate the agreements and record them clearly and accurately, as there is no specific reference to overtime pay for public holidays contained in the 2010 SSSBC 1 agreement.” [5] This administrative process of recording, checking and recording overtime quickly proved quite tedious for SAPS, particularly at major sporting events, conferences, summits and other events of national importance (“special events”) where large numbers of people had to work overtime. As a solution to these administrative headaches, SAPS and respondents concluded an agreement 4 of 2009 on April 14, 2009 that introduced a special daily allowance for police duties at special events. [20] The Commissioner should have intervened and changed the term “normal overtime” to reflect the intent of the parties, i.e., such a phrase means “usual overtime” when read throughout the context of Term 5 and not in isolation. [9] Given that the 2007 agreement uses the term “normal overtime” as one of three types of overtime, the choice of the same word in Term 5, in order to exclude all three types of overtime, was dishonest, as it serves only to create confusion that could have been avoided by the use of a different phrase such as “normal or ordinary overtime”. In any event, I am more than satisfied that this sentence, however regrettable, could still be amended to reflect the intent of the parties. Summary: Application for Section 145 of the A.R.A. and an arbitration award. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner`s finding was inappropriate insofar as the Commissioner`s interpretation of Article 5 of the 2010 SSSBC 1 contract had not only overlooked the importance of the clear grammatical significance of this clause, but had failed to take into account the context and purpose of that collective agreement, which was to waive the administrative burden of recording overtime. That, in a correct interpretation, the clear and grammatical meaning of Article 5 of Agreement 1 of 2010 and the context and purpose of that agreement indicated that public servants who work overtime during particular events, whether or not a special event is a public holiday, pay the allowance for unreaverted daily pension hours. That, therefore, the Commissioner`s interpretation was so inappropriate that no reasonable decision maker could have reached it. As a result, the price is verified and set aside. [25] If the objective of the 2010 agreement was precisely to remove this administrative burden, how is it possible that the parties, when they concluded the 2010 agreement, were to talk only about normal overtime and other types of overtime, namely?