In this regard, the Commissioner should have intervened and amended the term « normal overtime » so that it corresponds to the intention of the parties and that it means « usual overtime » when read in the context of term 5 as a whole and not in isolation.  Given that the term « normal overtime » is used in the 2007 agreement as one of three types of overtime, it is clear that the choice of the same term in Term 5 was incorrect for the purpose of excluding the three types of overtime, as it only serves to create confusion that could have been avoided by using another formulation such as « usual or regular overtime ». In any event, I am more than satisfied that this sentence, as regrettable as it is, has still been amended to reflect the intention of the parties.  There is no doubt that the conclusion of the 2010 Agreement was to eliminate the administrative burden on the three types of overtime contained in the 2007 Agreement, in particular when the recording, verification and recording of overtime worked during major events turned into a nightmare and was therefore almost impossible to manage.  This administrative process of recording, verifying and recording overtime quickly proved to be quite complicated for SAPS, particularly at major sporting events, conferences, summit meetings and other events of national importance (« special events »), during which a large number of staff members had to work overtime. To address these administrative headaches, SAPS and the respondents entered into Agreement No. 4 of 2009 on April 14, 2009, which introduced a special daily allowance for police duties during special events. . . .