19.1 It should have been transferred to Tlakale on the basis of the evidence and resolution 2 of 2003.  This is a request for reconsideration of an interpretation and application dispute concerning the transfer of the individual plaintiff, Ms Chokoe (hereinafter referred to as “Chokoe”), by the third respondent, the Limpopo Department of Education (hereinafter referred to as the Department), to Tlakale Secondary School (hereinafter Tlakale), which, in its view, was found to have failed to reach the collective agreements in force. The arbitrator found that, in the application of the relevant resolutions of the Bargaining Council, namely Resolution 2 of 2003 and, to the extent applicable, Resolution 6 of 1998, the Ministry had correctly interpreted and applied those resolutions when transferring the worker to the school concerned.  There may be good reasons for the Claimant to complain that she was not properly consulted throughout the proceedings and that the department should have let her know that Taxila SGB had not accepted her transfer because of the perceived discrepancy. However, these are procedural fairness issues and not the issue of compliance with collective agreements and, unfortunately, these issues did not fall within its jurisdiction, as the arbitrator himself rightly pointed out when referring to the authority of the Labour Court of Appeal in Minister of Safety and Security v. SSSBC and others.  He was referring to the possibility, although limited, that Chokoe could have challenged the administrative fairness of the decision not to place her in Taxila. However, it could not be expected, nor did it have the power to extend its narrow jurisdiction to examine the material advantages of their dispute.  Chokoe complained that she was a single mother and had just bought a house in Polokwane and that such a move would be very uncomfortable. The department`s response was that the alternative was to move to a school in Bochum, 60 km from Polokwane.
She reluctantly agreed to go to Taxila. Due to the distance she has to travel, she has to get up early in the morning and the situation has affected her life as a single mother, which has caused psychological stress. She complained that the process for identifying surplus personnel was flawed and that the Department had broken the agreement that she would be transferred to Taxila and had also breached the obligation to transfer her to Greenside.  The adjudicator considered any allegation by the educator that Resolution 2 of 2003 had not been properly interpreted and applied by the Ministry. “During the arbitration hearing, I realized that the claimant`s actual misfortune and her dispute with the employer had little to do with transfer procedures within the meaning of Resolution 2 of 2003 or another collective agreement, but much more to do with the material fairness of the transfer.”  With respect to his first complaint that the staff institution issued by the department to the Westenburg School was erroneous, the adjudicator found that this was something the department was doing within the meaning of section 5 of the Educator Employment Act and the Norms and Standards Regulations. The provision of the personnel body was not reflected in Resolution 2 of 2003 or any other collective agreement, and the ELRC was not empowered to make a decision on it. . . .