The court found that while clause 33 of the CBA provided for the effective date to be the date of execution if no agreement was reached within six months or six meetings, the respondent's conduct in delaying responses and failing to attend meetings frustrated the timely conclusion of negotiations. The claimant initiated the process in good time, and the respondent's actions amounted to unfair labour practice by seeking to benefit from its own delay. The court held that the effective date of the new CBA should be 1st December 2012, consistent with the parties' established practice and the principles of fair labour relations under Article 41 of the Constitution. The court declined to allow the respondent to rely on clause 33 to the detriment of employees where the delay was attributable to the respondent's conduct.