I decided to mention Technikon SA`s decision because it seems to offer a different perspective than the Northeast forests that preceded it, but in my view the two decisions are not mutually exclusive. I say this because I doubt very much that Froneman DJP, in the North East Cape Forest decision, advocated a disregard for ordinary and grammatical meaning in the interpretation of collective agreements. My understanding of his words is that one should not place too much emphasis on literal meaning to thwart the purpose of the LRA and total disregard for the specific interpretation. There must be a healthy balance between the two approaches to interpretation.  There is no doubt that the purpose of the 2010 agreement was to end the administrative burden associated with the three types of overtime included in the 2007 agreement, particularly where recording, checking and recording the number of overtime hours worked during major events was a nightmare and, therefore, almost manageable.  The application of strict business principles in the interpretation of collective agreements would simply be thwarted by collective bargaining and would further reduce the LRA`s objective. However, I do not know what Zondo JP said in the decision of La Technikon SA, where the qualified JP warned that it could not ignore the goal thread as a license to ignore the language used in the statute, which is the subject of the interpretation.  I agree with the views expressed by Zondo JP, but only to the extent that the language to be interpreted in a treaty or statute is clear and reveals the common intention of the parties and does not lead to absurdity, there can be no justification for invoking such an interpretation of purpose to undermine the common intention of the parties by moving outside the instrument.  Although the term “normal overtime” is somewhat absurd under the 2007 agreement, it could nevertheless have been amended to reflect the common intent of the parties. For the sake of simplicity and clarity, the central element of this decision lies in the fact that the literal and specific interpretation of Article 5 reveals the common intention of the parties to exclude the three types of overtime when the special non-pensionable overtime allowance transformed is payabale.