[10] The applicant submitted that it had not been properly informed by the service that it had been identified as one of Westenburg`s surplus employees. In the provision in question, Article 2, point (e) of the 2003 agreement states that [14] The arbitrator also considered Chokoe`s argument that his consent was necessary before he could be transferred to another school. He stressed that this was not the case in Resolution 2 of 2003. Article 2.4 G) of the decision simply states that: 19.4 The collective agreement was not respected with respect to the necessity and nature of the transfer. “During the conciliation negotiation, I realized that the plaintiff`s real dissatisfaction and her dispute with the employer had little to do with the transfer procedures in the form of Resolution 2 of 2003 or any other collective agreement, but that there is much more to do with the material fairness of the transfer.” [8] The Adjudicator considered each of the educator`s allegations that Resolution 2 of 2003 had not been properly interpreted and applied by the Division. [23] The applicant also argues that it was only through arbitration that the division informed it that Taxila SGB had not accepted its application on the basis of an alleged, but false, discrepancy between its capabilities and its requirements. Accordingly, the arbitrator did not acknowledge that she could have corrected the case if she had been informed in time of the alleged discrepancy. Nor did he understand that the form of transfer to Taxila`s school, on which the arbitrator relied, was not the document that negotiated the trial, but the last one that was completed only after transmission was authorized. While this was accurate and could be considered a reason for verification, the problem raised by the arbitrator remains that taxila SGB`s agreement was necessary to s8 (2) of the Educators Act before a transfer could be made. It is also difficult to imagine how this would have had a significant impact on its interpretation of collective agreements, since none of these considerations have a direct impact on the department`s compliance with these agreements. This observation was based on his evidence of the harsh effect of transmission on their personal circumstances. The referee expressed sympathy for Chokoe`s situation.

He stressed, however, that his jurisdiction did not extend to determining the fairness of the application of the agreement and that he was limited to determining whether the procedures described in the resolution had been followed.