There is no such evidence in this case. The existence of this practice was never presented to the complainant`s witnesses. Mashilo, who was moderator and leader of SALGA and third respondent, was not asked a single question about the existence of this practice. George, who signed contracts on behalf of SALGA, was not asked about the practice. Lebello, a member of SALGA and the negotiating committee, was also not asked about its existence. 4.1.1 Workers whose existing base salary is above the maximum level of remuneration to which they are entitled must be introduced into the wage curve applicable to their commune and retain their basic wage.
 SAMWU applied to the Tribunal on the basis of an order that quashed the alleged agreement signed on 21 April 2010. The decision was sought to prevent the third respondent (South African Local Government Bargaining Council (SALGBC) from implementing the so-called agreement on the wage curve recovery agreement signed on April 21, 2010 until the dispute over this “agreement” can be resolved. Due to inconsistent factual disputes that could not be resolved on the documents, the case was the subject of oral proceedings. After a lengthy trial, the court issued the following order:  The only evidence put forward by the unions regarding the SALGA principles that accepted the “final agreement” was that Mashilo said that SALGA agreed. Mashilo was told that Forbes had a right to assume that he was giving SALGa`s position. He denied this and indicated that SALGA was represented by Georges and Yawa. Mashilo was one of the facilitators and not a spokesperson or principle of SALGA. He did not have a mandate to speak on behalf of SALGA. He stated that SALGA officials had neither seen nor approved the document containing the July 1, 2010 increase date. Lebellos` evidence was the same.  First, the practice itself is not properly established. There is no evidence of when this practice began; how many collective agreements have been adopted as a result of this practice or whether this practice has been followed only on administrative or administrative and substantive issues. Even if one assumes that, in certain circumstances, a practice of the parties may put an end to what they have expressly agreed in their constitution, there must be sufficient evidence that the practice or custom is well entrenched.