ÿWPC¦ …#V4V %j 0(pUD˜Ü 0Jë 0T5 0^‰ 0hç 0rO 0|Á 0†= 0à 1uS U,È 0dô U,X U6„ B)º DCã AM& U*s ? v~ÜvÓZ B- D3J 0@} AO½Æ  0DÒ 0D D/Z B‰˜€* þÿþÿdX($¡¡8§ÖhZŠ,Century-WP Regular3|x÷2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€-Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial 5Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òFebruary€26,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò d%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ £ ÒÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€3-XXdìdÈ7Ñà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌ____________________________________________________________________________ÌÌADAMS€TV€OF€MEMPHIS,€INC.,à àà àShelby€Circuit€No.€43085€T.D.ÌLicensee€of€WHBQ„TVà àà àà àà àC.A.€No.€€02A01„9410„CV„00225ÌÌà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà àHon.€James€E.€Swearengen,ÏJudgeÌÙ€€ÙßL€!;+'h|Ôÿ:` Å `€€LßÌv.ÌÌINTERNATIONAL€BROTHERHOOD€OFÌELECTRICAL€WORKERS,€AFL„CIO,ÌLOCAL€474€and€BERNARD€LILTON,ÌÌà àDefendants/Appellees.ÌÌGARY€K.€SMITH€and€ARCHIE€K.€SANDERS,ÏShuttleworth,€Smith,€McNabb€&€Williams,€Memphis,€Attorneys€forÏAppellantsÌÌDAN€M.€NORWOOD€and€JAMES€R.€BECKER,€JR.,€Norwood,€Phillips,€Deboo,ÏHoward€&€Grubb,€Memphis,€Attorneys€for€Appellees.ÌÌò òòòREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDóóó óÌÌOpinion€Filed:Ì____________________________________________________________________________ÌÌò òTOMLIN,€Sr.€Jó óÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àAdams€TV€of€Memphis,€Inc.€(ð ðplaintiffðð)€filed€suit€in€theÏCircuit€Court€of€Shelby€County€against€the€InternationalÏBrotherhood€of€Electrical€Workers,€Local€474€(ð ðIBEWðð)€and€BernardÏLilton€(ð ðdefendantðð)€seeking€to€have€that€court€vacate€anÏarbitration€award€that€reinstated€Liltonððs€employment€withÏplaintiff€after€being€terminated.€€The€trial€court€deniedÏplaintiffððs€application€to€vacate.€€On€appeal,€plaintiff€hasÏpresented€one€issue€for€our€consideration:€whether€the€trial€courtÏerred€in€denying€plaintiffððs€application€to€set€the€arbitrationÍaward€aside€on€the€grounds€that€the€arbitrator€exceeded€hisÏpowers.€€For€the€reasons€hereinafter€stated,€we€reverse€andÏremand.ÌÌà àThere€appears€to€be€no€dispute€as€to€the€basic€facts.€ÏPlaintiff€and€defendant€entered€into€a€collective€bargainingÏagreement€that€covered€all€ð ðtechniciansðð€employed€by€plaintiffððsÏtelevision€station€in€Memphis.€€Under€the€agreement,€IBEW€couldÏsubmit€to€arbitration€any€grievance€that€arose€from€theÏinterpretation,€application,€or€compliance€with€any€of€theÏagreementððs€terms.€€In€regard€to€plaintiffððs€right€to€disciplineÏand€discharge€its€employees,€Article€III€of€agreement€reads€asÏfollows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àSection€1ð"ðIt€is€agreed€that€the€rights€of€theÏmanagement€of€the€Company€(the€ð ðManagementðð)€have€beenÏbargained,€and€include,€but€are€not€limited€to,€theÏfollowing:ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àH.€€To€establish€reasonable€rules€of€employee€conduct;ÌÌà8 àI.€€To€relieve€Technicians€from€duty€because€of€lack€ofÏwork€or€other€legitimate€reasons.ÌÌà8 àSection€2ð"ðThe€Company€shall€also€have€the€exclusiveÏright€to€direct€its€employees,€the€right€to€hire,Ïpromote,€demote,€transfer,€discharge€or€discipline€forÏjust€cause€and€to€maintain€discipline€among€employees,Ïand€generally€manage€the€Companyððs€business€as€it€deemsÏbest.Ìà àà8 àÌà8 àSection€3ð"ðThe€Company€construes€and€the€UnionÏrecognizes€the€specific€provisions€of€this€bargainingÏAgreement€as€constituting€limitations€and€the€onlyÏlimitations€upon€Companyððs€right€to€manage€itsÍbusiness.ÌÌÌÌÓÓArticle€X€of€the€agreement€defined€the€scope€of€the€arbitratorððsÏpower€to€resolve€grievances:ÌÌÓÓà8 àThe€decision€of€the€arbitrator€shall€be€in€writing,Ïshall€be€conclusive,€final€and€binding€upon€theÏparties,€and€shall€be€complied€with€promptly.€€òòTheÏarbitrator€shall€have€no€power€to€change,€add€to,Ïsubtract€from€or€modify€this€agreementóó.€€(emphasisÏadded).ÌÌÓÓÌà àAs€an€employed€technician,€Lilton€was€covered€by€theÏagreement.€€Plaintiff€terminated€Liltonððs€employment€following€aÏseries€of€incidents€that€plaintiff€characterized€as€ð ðcontinualÏmisconduct,€insubordination,€inattention€to€detail€and€lack€ofÏcooperation.ðð€€An€arbitration€hearing€was€held€following€theÏfiling€of€a€grievance€on€behalf€of€Lilton€by€IBEW.€€At€thatÏhearing,€plaintiff€presented€the€following€summaries€of€LiltonððsÏincidences€of€misconduct.ÌÓÓÌà à2/22/90„à8 àGrievantððs€failure€to€spot€check€aÏrecording€of€ð ðA€Current€AffairððÏresulted€in€the€broadcast€ð ðsittingÏon€blackðð€for€about€15€minutes.Ï(Performance€of€duty)ÌÌà à1/31/91„à8 àUpon€a€complaint€from€SusanÏChristenbury€about€the€grievantÏbeing€slow,€Coughlan€went€to€theÏRecord€Room€and€told€the€grievantÏthat€rolling€back€and€forth€betweenÏmachines€was€inefficient.€€LiltonÏsaid€he€could€cue€faster€his€wayÏrather€than€walking.€€When€CoughlanÏleft,€Lilton€was€still€doing€it€hisÍway.€€Later€on€that€day€CoughlanÏtold€Lilton€that€if€he€didnððtÏchange,€ð ðit€would€come€to€a€bad€endÏfor€him.ðð€(Performance€of€duty€andÏinsubordination)ÌÌà à2/1/91„à8 àLilton€was€needed€in€the€RecordÏRoom€and€no€one€knew€where€he€hadÏgone.€€Shortly€afterwards€he€wasÏseen€on€the€carport€deck.€€HeððdÏbeen€told€many€times€to€let€theÏswitcher€know€when€he€left€hisÏpost.€(Inattention€to€duties)ÌÌà à2/4/91„à8 àAfter€learning€he€was€needed€inÏRecord€Room,€Coughlan€saw€Lilton€inÏthe€hall€and€told€him€to€go€showÏtape€to€Tim€Lynch€and€others.€ÏLater€Coughlan€saw€someone€elseÏshowing€Lynch.€(Insubordination)ÌÌà à2/19/91„à8 àCoughlan€noticed€Lilton€peekingÏthrough€a€crack€in€the€door€in€theÏCreative€Service€Room€while€otherÏpeople€were€doing€his€work€in€theÏRecord€Room.€€He€told€him€to€comeÏout.€€Later€that€day€Lilton€leftÏRecord€Room€without€notice€of€whereÏhe€was€going.€€Later€saw€himÏwalking€from€car€to€building.€Ï(Inattention€to€duties)ÌÌà à2/20/91„à8 àLilton€went€to€his€immediateÏsupervisor,€Dick€Romine,€and€toÏCoughlan€to€report€equipmentÏproblems.€€He€tried€to€get€anotherÏemployee€to€leave€her€post€to€be€aÏwitness€for€him.€€Some€of€theÏð ðtrouble€ticketsðð€(problems)Ïreported€by€Bernard€could€beÏduplicated.€(Misconduct)ÌÌà à2/21/91„à8 àRomine€asked€Lilton€to€workÏovertime€from€4:00€to€5:30€when€theÏrelief€could€come€in€to€work€untilÏmidnight.€€Lilton€said€he€couldÏwork€4:00„12:00,€but€not€4:00„5:30.Ï(Lack€of€cooperation)ÌÌà à3/6/91„à8 àLilton€was€asked€by€fellowÏemployees€to€make€a€ð ðcart€dubðð€andÍchange€the€number€on€the€dub€sheet.€ÏHe€refused,€and€in€violation€ofÏlong„standing€policy,€demanded€thatÏMattei€come€to€record€room€to€makeÏthe€change€herself.€€(Lack€ofÏcooperation)ÌÌà à3/6/91„à8 àLilton€told€Romine€in€a€ð ðtellingÏmannerðð€that€he€was€going€to€loadÏup€a€tape€machine€and€startÏrecording€at€the€correct€time,€andÏif€the€Satellite€receiver€2.3€wasÏnot€working€properly,€he€was€goingÏto€record€it€anyway.€€Lilton€hadÏexhibited€this€trait€several€timesÏpreviously.€€(Misconduct)ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àFollowing€the€initial€incident€plaintiff€gave€Lilton€aÏwritten€reprimand.€€Lilton€received€no€further€warnings€fromÏplaintiff€prior€to€his€dismissal.ÌÌà àThe€arbitrator€in€his€opinion€set€aside€Liltonððs€discharge,Ïbut€gave€him€a€fourteen€day€disciplinary€suspension.€€Although€theÏarbitrator€agreed€with€plaintiff€that€the€long€list€of€incidentsÏof€misconduct€made€ð ðan€excellent€caseðð€for€Liltonððs€termination,Ïnonetheless€he€found€that€plaintiff€did€not€have€ð ðjust€causeðð€toÏterminate€Lilton€as€required€by€the€agreement.€€The€arbitratorsÏdecision€stated€in€part:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àCombining€the€good€with€the€bad,€the€picture€ofÏthe€grievant€that€the€testimony€portrays€is€the€that€ofÏa€well„educated,€well„trained,€capable€employee€of€nineÏyears,€who,€for€whatever€reason,€in€the€past€yearÏprogressively€became€inattentive€to€his€work€andÏsullen,€fractious€and€uncooperative€towards€managementÏand€fellow€employees€alike.ÌÌà àà à.€.€.€.€ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€What€Iððm€getting€to€is€that€fairness€(callÏit€just€cause)€will€not€allow€the€Company€to€go€alongÏover€a€period€of€time€with€the€grievant€committing€moreÏor€less€benign€offenses€one€after€another€until€oneÏday,€having€withstood€all€of€the€offensive€behaviorÏthat€it€was€able,€to€summarily€terminate€him.€€JustÏcause€required€that€an€employee€be€made€aware€that€aÏparticular€behavior€or€behavior€pattern€will€or€has€putÏhis€job€in€jeopardy.ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà àAlthough€use€of€progressive€discipline€is€not€aÏrequirement€of€either€the€contract€or€the€principle€ofÏjust€cause€where€in€the€past€the€Company€has€used€theÏtypical€first„step€warning,€and€we€are€not€dealing€withÏone€of€the€ð ðmajorðð€offenses,€the€employee€has€a€rightÏto€be€told,€if€not€formally,€then€certainly€plainlyÏthat€his€job€is€at€risk€and€what€he€must€do€to€salvageÏit.€€No€one€did€this€with€Lilton.ÌÌÓÓÌà àThereafter,€plaintiff€filed€an€application€in€the€ShelbyÏCounty€Circuit€Court€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€29„5„313(a),€seeking€toÏhave€the€court€vacate€the€arbitration€award€on€the€ground€that€theÏarbitrator€exceeded€his€powers€under€the€collective€bargainingÏagreement.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€29„5„313(a)€(Supp.€1995).€€Following€aÏhearing,€the€trial€court€denied€plaintiffððs€application€on€theÏgrounds€that€it€did€not€have€the€power€to€set€aside€theÏarbitration€award.ÌÌà àThis€state€has€adopted€the€Uniform€Arbitration€Act,€T.C.A.€ððððÏ29„5„301€to€29„5„320€(Supp.€1995).€€This€Act€ð ðgoverns€the€scope€ofÏjudicial€review€of€arbitration€awards.ðð€€òòInternational€TravelÏGroup,€Inc.€v.€Copyright€Management,€Inc.óó,€769€S.W.2d€217,€218Í(Tenn.€App.€1988).€€Specifically,€T.C.A.€ðð€29„5„320€provides€thatÏ"[t]his€part€shall€be€so€construed€as€to€effectuate€its€generalÏpurpose€to€make€uniform€the€law€of€those€states€which€enact€it."ÌÌà àIn€òòArnold€v.€Morgan€Keegan€&€Co.óó,€No.€03A01„9309„CH„00304,Ï1996€WL€15857€(Tenn.€Jan.€16,€1996),€our€supreme€court€sought€toÏclarify€and€restate€the€standards€of€review€to€be€utilized€in€anÏarbitration€case.€€The€supreme€court€held€that€based€upon€theÏpolicy€of€providing€finality€of€arbitration€awards€and€decisions,Ïjudicial€review€of€arbitration€decisions€is€limited.€€This€courtÏdoes€not€have€jurisdiction€to€review€the€merits€of€arbitrationÏdecisions,€even€if€the€parties€allege€that€an€award€rests€onÏerrors€of€fact€or€misrepresentation€of€the€contract.€€WhenÏreviewing€decisions€of€the€trial€court,€this€court€must€accept€theÏtrial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€unless€they€are€ð ðclearlyÏerroneous.ðð€€òòArnoldóó€at€*5.€€The€supreme€court€also€set€forth€theÏstandard€review€by€this€court€pertaining€to€questions€of€law€asÏfollows:ÌÓÓà8 àÌÌà8 àà àMatters€of€law,€if€not€able€to€be€resolved€byÏresort€to€controlling€statutes,€should€be€consideredÏindependently,€with€the€utmost€caution,€and€in€a€mannerÏdesigned€to€minimize€interference€with€an€efficient€andÏeconomical€system€of€alternative€dispute€resolution.ÌÌÓÓÌòòId.óó€at€*6.ÌÌà àThe€vacation€of€an€arbitration€award€is€provided€for€inÍT.C.A.€ðð€29„5„313(a),€which€reads€in€part€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àVacation€of€award.ð"ð(a)€Upon€application€of€a€party,€theÏcourt€shall€vacate€an€award€where:ÌÌà àà à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 à(3)€The€arbitrators€exceeded€their€powers.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThis€provision€of€the€Act€was€considered€and€discussed€by€theÏmiddle€section€of€this€court€in€òòInternational€Talent€Group,€Inc.Ïv.€Copyright€Management,€Inc.óó,€769€S.W.2d€217€(Tenn.€App.€1988).€ÏIn€this€case,€International€Talent€Group€(ITG)€negotiated€anÏagreement€with€Copyright€Management,€Inc.€(CMI)€whereby€it€wouldÏdesign€a€software€package€for€ITG.€€There€were€long€delays€in€theÏdelivery€of€the€software,€and€after€it€was€delivered,€it€was€foundÏto€be€unusable.€€A€dispute€arose€thereafter,€and€pursuant€to€anÏagreement€entered€into€by€the€parties,€the€matter€was€submitted€toÏarbitration.€€The€arbitration€panel€conducted€a€hearing€andÏrendered€an€award€in€favor€of€ITG€in€the€amount€of€$76,400€forÏCMIððs€failure€to€deliver€a€workable€system.€€òòId.óó€at€218.ÌÌà àITG€filed€a€petition€in€chancery€court€seeking€to€have€thatÏcourt€confirm€the€award.€€CMI€sought€to€have€the€award€vacated,Ïcontending€that€the€arbitration€panel€had€exceeded€its€powers.€ÏThe€chancellor€held€that€the€award€should€be€vacated,€stating€thatÏthe€panel€had€exceeded€its€powers€by€awarding€damages€in€excess€ofÏthe€$7,500€license€fee,€because€the€agreement€between€the€partiesÍprovided€that€CMIððs€€liability€should€not€exceed€the€license€feeÏpaid.€€òòId.óóÌÌà àOn€appeal,€this€court€noted€that€the€scope€of€authority€of€anÏarbitration€panel€is€defined€by€the€terms€of€the€agreement€betweenÏthe€parties,€which€includes€the€agreement€to€arbitrate.€€òòId.óóÏ(citing€òòSwift€Indus.,€Inc.€v.€Botany€Indus.,€Inc.óó,€466€F.2d€1125,Ï1131€(3d€Cir.€1972);€òòMalecki€v.€Burnhamóó,€435€A.2d€13,€14€(Conn.Ï1980)).€€In€considering€a€dispute€submitted€to€arbitration,€theÏarbitrator€or€the€arbitration€panel€is€confined€to€theÏinterpretation€and€application€of€the€agreement€of€the€parties,Ïand€must€abide€by€the€terms€of€the€agreement€when€fashioning€aÏremedy.€€If€the€arbitrator€makes€an€award€that€is€inconsistentÏwith€the€terms€of€the€agreement,€then€a€court€may€refuse€toÏenforce€it.€€òòId.óó€at€220.€€This€court€concluded€that€by€making€anÏaward€that€was€clearly€contrary€to€the€parties'€agreement,€theÏarbitrators€had€exceeded€their€powers;€therefore,€the€trial€courtÏproperly€vacated€the€award€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€29„5„313(a)(3).ÓÓà8 àÌÌÓÓÌà àIn€the€instant€case,€plaintiff€argues€that€the€arbitratorÏexceeded€his€powers€under€the€collective€bargaining€agreement€byÏdefining€ð ðjust€causeðð€to€require€plaintiff€to€exercise€progressiveÏdiscipline€on€Lilton€prior€to€his€termination.€€Although€ð ðjustÏcauseðð€is€not€defined€in€the€agreement,€the€arbitratorððs€use€ofÏthe€term€draws€no€support€from€our€case€law.€€In€òòDubois€v.€Gentryóó,Ï184€S.W.2d€369€(Tenn.€1945),€the€court€cited€with€approval€theÍfollowing€definition€of€just€cause:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àAs€used€in€contracts€providing€for€termination€ofÏcontract€by€either€party€for€ð ðjust€causeðð€or€ð ðgoodÏcause,ðð€the€quoted€phrases€are€not€synonymous€withÏð ðlegal€cause,ðð€which€exists€independently€of€theÏcontract,€but€include€causes€outside€of€legal€cause,Ïwhich€must€be€based€on€reasonable€grounds,€and€thereÏmust€be€a€fair€and€honest€cause€or€reason,€regulated€byÏgood€faith€on€the€part€of€the€party€exercising€theÏpower€to€terminate.ÌÌÌÓÓòòId.óó€at€370€(quoting€17€C.J.S.€òòContractsóó€ðð€399).€€The€general€rulesÏwith€regard€to€contracts€of€employment€incorporate€the€element€ofÏjust€cause:ÌÓÓÌÌà8 àà àGenerally,€a€contract€of€employment€for€anÏindefinite€term€is€a€contract€at€will€and€may€beÏterminated€by€either€party.€Whereas,€a€contract€for€aÏdefinite€term€may€not€be€terminated€before€the€end€ofÏthe€term,€except€for€cause€or€by€mutual€agreement,Ïunless€the€right€to€do€so€is€reserved€in€the€contract.ÌÌà8 àà àòòAn€employer€has€the€right€to€discharge€an€employeeÏat€any€time€for€just€causeóó.€€The€fact€the€employerÏbears€with€the€incompetency€or€irregularities€of€suchÏemployee€for€a€time€does€not€estop€the€employer€fromÏdischarging€the€employee€for€such€incompetency€if€itÏcontinues.ÌÌÓÓÌòòCurtis€v.€Reevesóó,€736€S.W.2d€108,€111€(Tenn.€App.€1987)€(emphasisÏadded)€(citations€omitted).ÌÌà àAlthough€these€cases€are€not€directly€on€point,€theyÏillustrate€the€fact€that€ð ðjust€causeðð€is€not€a€qualified€term€thatÏrequired€plaintiff€to€warn€Lilton€that€his€actions€could€result€inÍdismissal€before€plaintiff€had€ð ðjust€causeðð€for€termination.€ÏMoreover,€the€fact€that€plaintiff€tolerated€Liltonððs€misconductÏfor€several€weeks€does€not€estop€them€from€firing€Lilton€for€justÏcause.ÌÌà àThe€arbitrator€should€not€under€the€guise€of€constructionÏmake€new€and€different€contracts€for€the€parties.€€òòSee€Blaylock€&ÏBrown€Construction€v.€AIU€Ins.€Co.óó€796€S.W.2d€146,€149€(Tenn.€App.Ï1990).€€Just€as€the€arbitrator€in€òòInternational€Talent€Groupóó€wasÏwithout€authority€to€impose€damages€in€excess€of€the€limit€set€outÏin€the€software€license€agreement,€the€arbitrator€in€this€case€wasÏwithout€authority€to€impose€upon€plaintiff€a€system€of€warningÏrequirements€or€progressive€discipline€not€bargained€for€by€theÏparties.€€As€noted€the€agreement€clearly€states€that€theÏarbitrator€cannot€change,€add€to,€or€modify€the€agreement.€€In€ourÏopinion€the€arbitrator€went€beyond€the€scope€of€his€authorityÏgranted€by€the€agreement,€and€thus€exceeded€his€powers.€€ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€court€below€denying€theÏapplication€to€vacate€the€award€is€reversed,€and€the€arbitrationÏaward€is€vacated.€€This€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€forÏentry€of€an€appropriate€order€concerning€a€rehearing€before€a€newÏarbitrator€as€provided€for€in€T.C.A.€ðð€29„5„313(c).€€Costs€in€thisÏcause€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€defendants,€for€which€execution€mayÏissue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓ ` ÜX#(0*ŒX ÓÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àTOMLIN,€Sr.€J.ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCRAWFORD,€P.J.à à€€€€€(CONCURS)ÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àFARMER,€J.à à€€€€€(CONCURS)