If the Commissioner had taken into account the objective and spirit of the 2010 agreement, he would undoubtedly have found that if the objective of the 2010 agreement was to eliminate the administrative burden related to the three types of overtime, it was not possible that, when concluding the 2010 agreement, the parties would refer only to normal overtime and the other two types of overtime only if only normal overtime. were carried out by the administration. ufwand, and not the other two.  Apart from the 18th, which was also a statutory holiday, all parties understood the 17th and 19th as the days of special events for which employees would receive a special daily allowance for overtime, in accordance with the 2010 agreement. Summary: Application for review and set aside of an arbitral award within the meaning of Article 145 of the LRA. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner`s finding was inappropriate, given that the Commissioner`s interpretation of section 5 of the 2010 SSSBC 1 agreement not only ignored the mere grammatical meaning of that clause, but did not take into account the context and purpose of that collective agreement, which was to avoid the administrative burden of recording overtime worked. . . .