Section 23 (1)d) of the LRA authorizes employers and majority unions to make a collective agreement mandatory for non-parties that they have entered into.  However, this court is not in a position to decide that the strike is not protected, as the SAPU referred a dispute over the interpretation and application of the collective agreement to SSSBC prior to the opening of this application in the labour court. This dispute is still before the SSSBC and is essential to the protection of the strike.  SAPS has, in my view, advanced an imperative case where the strike is not protected, since the dispute was settled by a collective agreement between saps and the majority union POPCRU. Agreement No. 4/2001, introduction of service assistance taking into account the unique situation of sapS with respect to the affordability of the risk allocation and other certificates. The agreement was a consolidation of the risk allowance, special risk assistance and child care allowance of R.400.00 This is the permanent strike of SAPS call centre staff working at the 10111 call centre.  It is also doubtful that the continuation of the strike for collective bargaining is functional, as it is customary between the parties that the SAPS does not have the power to define and improve the terms of service and remuneration of PSA employees. This authority is under the mandate of the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) and is negotiated within the Public Service Bargaining and Coordination Council.
 I now turn to the SAPU`s prayer that this court will set aside the SAPS of the opening of disciplinary proceedings against the strikers. a) What is the risk rate for the policy and b) when was it last verified and increased?  In the Lesiba/Ministry of Justice case, Mr. Van Niekerk J stated that the intervention of the courts in internal disciplinary procedures in the workplace would undermine the legal objective of resolving disputes under the AUTHORITY. The challenges posed by discipline must be addressed in the exercise of discipline in the workplace. If decisions made in these internal disciplinary procedures are the subject of litigation, these will be matters that should be dealt with in arbitration proceedings under the aegis of the CCMA or the relevant bargaining council. This court exercises supervisory jurisdiction, as it has the power to review the refereeing decisions and decisions of arbitrators. This system is totally compromised if the parties try to intervene as a first instance forum on the effective micro-administration of disciplinary procedures in the workplace.   What the SAPU is actually asking this tribunal to do is to intervene at first instance in internal disciplinary proceedings and to rule on internal disciplinary matters.  SAPU hastened to go to this court to declare that the strike was protected and prevented the SAPS from taking disciplinary action against the strikers. one. The release of dangerous goods ended in 2001 within the South African Police Service (SAPS) with the conclusion of the Security and Branch Council (SSSBC) agreement 4 of 2001.