ÿWPC‰ so“0Y“®žúávFo虇€¡®˜ )>­ÒwÄuêÕ´ºrŠ';s{ѦٵÅ…IéùX©ñ_Þͬ¥’.Úrpönš-‘ÉÖ1êÙµ {ZrøjNþ]´–bcE\ñ$R“îà*廈ÿû@]P0&è.£nYŸKÐZ ÅØ-¦T9nôX‰V$dŽé~•ec#Áƒ¼Æ-…¨Ä5‚?¡K@­ºî‘v7 Bß–?‚C7†ÛQ.Ú?s¡I!¬yÉܦãXÜ:qlàFQ¿¡‚YêŒî6—ùzºÅž÷j0Èþñ3 Žº>tzRg0\ÖQ9ѧKØ7t7ÒÃk¿MM­[¯£²oOð ˜(sÏÂð×%xa8MŸš²ðÏg{g»ë¸šhðØÂuÍS~ˉ Pî§í,i¤…êØ%;Ùq2®sjÍÂ}´LC†…LJáNÍ”žÿÝÇN$Oîµ^<ÂO¦t¬Sç dp²“O5GÈ0¶pî¯&êÑ ¡“Ué§ ~!ûu3ªz‹/ù´£ñÇ‹¿¦nY–Lš€ 6ŠVÁPO]öNÄbØÂ!‰ƒh^`Ûåò ¥/{v>׃-è³wñÀA½n³!ªP¢¯,_ÅýÝH?yØßRLÐD`4@T 0(c‹w“l—UN 0lQ 0D½ UN #!O Np ^ r ~ m€ — — — 5Ÿ U:Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô UB %P P P P P P P P P P P P BV V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V AQs ÆÄ 0DŠ 0DÎ 0D D3VtpO'ÔøÔô3|x($¡¡ bÝ ƒúÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÐ  ÐÒܰÒÔ€ Xû XXXÔÔ€ &¤a%X Xû Ôà0 4 àThe€duration€provision€was€originally€part€of€the€two€prior€written€Memoranda€of€AgreementÐ Š‚ Ðbetween€the€parties.ÐbZ4(#4(# Ð(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular((3úÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0d ['L ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ  +Ý ƒ[¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€XÞ¢XXXÔÔ€èõnçXXÞ¢ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€­†çèõnÔÐ  ÐÌOctober€25,€1999ÌÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAxÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX dZ[\]_Cþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó&&&&'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔѰÑÒܰÒÑ ý ÑÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ8€ÙÊXXdêdÈ8ÑÔ€X°$XXXÔÔ€ŠÄœ‹XX°$ÔÔ_ÔÌßx€Y_B2.jz¤ÿ `€€@ÿE< Žtt¨¦tC x߀€€€à@M M ‚àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  ÐÌà@44%‚àAT€KNOXVILLEˆÌó óà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àà œ àà ô àà L àÌÌÌÌÌUNION€COUNTY€EDUCATIONà ì à)€C/A€NO.€03A01„9904„CV„00122Ð    ÐASSOCIATION,à ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)€Ð    Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)€UNION€CHANCERYÌà 4 àPlaintiff„Appellee,à < àà ” àà ì à)Ð    Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)€HON.€€BILLY€JOE€WHITE,€Ìv.à 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)€CHANCELLORÐ   Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)ÌUNION€COUNTY€BOARD€OF€à ” àà ì à)Ð   ÐEDUCATION€and€DAVID€F.€à ” àà ì à)Ð   ÐCOPPOCK,€Superintendent€of€the€à ì à)Ð   ÐUnion€County€Schools,à < àà ” àà ì à)€AFFIRMEDÐ   Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)€ANDÌà 4 àDefendants„Appellants.à ” àà ì à)€REMANDEDÐ   ÐÌÌÌÌCHARLES€HAMPTON€WHITE€and€JAY€N.€CHAMNESS,€CORNELIUS€&ÏCOLLINS,€Nashville,€for€Plaintiff„Appellee.ÌÌJON€G.€ROACH,€WATSON,€HOLLOW€&€REEVES,€P.L.C.,€Knoxville,€forÏDefendant„Appellant,€Union€County€Board€of€Education.ÌÌÌÌÌà@%‚àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óˆÐ  *## ÐÌÌà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àà œ àFranks,€J.ÌÌÌÓÓà 4 àà Œ àIn€this€action€seeking€injunctive€and€declaratory€relief€to€enforce€anÏarbitratorððs€award,€the€plaintiff€was€granted€summary€judgment,€and€the€defendantsÏhave€appealed.Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€following€facts€are€not€in€dispute.€€Since€approximately€July€1,Ï1987,€the€Union€County€Education€Association€(ð ðAssociationðð)€and€the€UnionÏCounty€Board€of€Education€(ð ðBoardðð)€have€negotiated,€ratified€and€executed€writtenÐ  :33ý Ðmemoranda€of€agreement€under€the€authority€of€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÐ  Ððð49-5-601,€et.€seq.€€These€memoranda€set€forth€the€terms€and€conditions€ofÐ   Ðprofessional€service€of€the€certificated€employees€of€the€Union€County€school€system.€Ð   ÐOn€May€2,€1994,€the€Association€and€the€Board€executed€a€written€Memorandum€ofÐ   ÐAgreement€(ð ðAgreementðð)€which€was€deemed€effective€July€1,€1993.€€ArticleÐ  ÐXXXVIII€of€that€Agreement€provides€for€the€duration€of€the€Agreement׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€as€follows:Ð   ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @ àò òARTICLE€XXXVIII:€DURATIONó óÐ   ÐÓŒÓÓÓà0 4 àà0Œ 4(#4(#àà ä àThe€provisions€of€this€Agreement€will€be€effective€as€of€July€1stÐ ü  Ð1993,€à ä àexcept€as€otherwise€provided€herein,€and€will€continue€for€threeÐ ü Ð(3)€years€and€remain€in€full€force€and€effect€until€a€successor€agreementÐ ü Ðhas€been€ratified.€€Each€professional€employee€shall€be€given€a€copy€ofÐ ü Ðthis€agreement.ò òÐüŒ (#Œ (# Ðó óÌÓÓà 4 àà Œ àIn€February€of€1996,€the€Association€notified€the€Board€of€its€desire€toÐ ü Ðexecute€a€successor€Memorandum€of€Agreement.€€By€mutual€agreement,€they€delayedÐ ü Ðthe€commencement€of€negotiations€until€after€June€1,€1996.€€These€negotiations€beganÐ ü Ðon€July€26,€1996,€and€at€no€time€did€either€party€express€any€doubt€or€reservationÐ !ü Ðconcerning€the€viability€of€the€Memorandum€of€Agreement.€€Ð #ü Ðà 4 àà Œ àOn€September€24,€1996,€fourteen€faculty€members€of€Horace€MaynardÐ %ü ÐHigh€School€filed€grievances€pursuant€to€the€provisions€of€Article€VI€of€theÐ 'ü  ÐAgreement,€challenging€practices€of€the€Principal€and€the€Board.€€On€September€30,Ð )ü!" Ð1996,€Superintendent€David€F.€Coppock,€on€behalf€of€the€Board,€wrote€the€PresidentÐ +ü#$ Ðof€the€Association€and€stated:Ð -ü%& ÐÓÓà0 4 àà0Œ 4(#4(#àà ä àIt€is€the€position€of€this€office€that,€at€present,€there€is€no€existingÐ /ü'( Ðcontract€between€Union€County€Board€of€Education€and€the€UnionÐ 0ü() ÐCounty€Education€Association.€€Therefore,€since€no€contract€exists€and,Ð 1ü)* Ðconsequently,€no€means€by€which€a€grievance€may€advance,€theÐ 2ü*+ Ðgrievance€filed€in€my€office€on€September€24,€1996€will€not€beÐ 3ü+, Ðreviewed.Ð4ü,-Œ (#Œ (# ÐÐ 5ü-. ÐÓÓà 4 àà Œ àAlso€on€September€30,€1996,€Fred€H.€Simmons,€Chairman€of€the€BoardÐ  Ðwrote€the€President€of€the€Association,€stating€in€part:Ð   ÐÓÓà0 4 àà0Œ 4(#4(#àà ä àThat€contract€contains€a€duration€clause€which,€althoughÐ   Ðsomewhat€ambiguous€and€unclear,€could€be€construed€to€create€aÐ   Ðcontract€of€indeterminable€length.€€Such€a€contract€would€be€directlyÐ   Ðviolative€of€the€Education€Professional€Negotiations€Act.€€Specifically,Ð  Ðthat€Act€at€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€49„5„612€bars€the€Board€of€EducationÐ  Ðfrom€entering€into€a€collective€bargaining€agreement€for€a€period€inÐ   Ðexcess€of€three€years.€€Accordingly,€it€is€our€position€that€the€contractÐ   Ðbetween€the€Union€County€Board€of€Education€and€the€U.C.E.A.€wasÐ   Ðeffective€from€July€1,€1993€until€June€30,€1996.Ð Œ (#Œ (# ÐÌÓÓAs€of€September€30,€1996,€the€Board€and€the€Association€were€in€the€process€ofÐ  Ðnegotiating€a€successor€agreement.Ð  Ðà 4 àà Œ àThe€Association€requested€the€Board€and€Coppock€to€process€theÐ  Ðgrievances,€but€the€Board€refused.€€On€January€17,€1997,€the€Association€notifiedÐ  ÐCoppock€of€its€request,€pursuant€to€the€grievance€procedure€set€forth€in€theÐ  ÐAgreement,€to€the€American€Arbitration€Association€that€the€grievances€be€arbitrated.€Ð  ÐThe€American€Arbitration€Association€notified€the€Board€of€the€Associationððs€demandÐ ! Ðto€arbitrate€the€grievances.€€On€February€17,€1997,€Coppock,€on€behalf€of€the€Board,Ð # Ðnotified€the€American€Arbitration€Association€that€it€would€not€participate€inÐ % Ðarbitration€because€ð ðwe€feel€the€contract€is€dead€and€do€not€wish€to€recognize€it.ðð€€TheÐ '  ÐBoard€continued€to€decline€to€participate€in€any€arbitration€despite€the€urging€of€theÐ )"" ÐAmerican€Arbitration€Association,€and€the€Arbitrator,€Michael€J.€Jedell.€€Ð +$$ Ðà 4 àà Œ àAn€arbitration€hearing€was€held€in€Maynardsville€on€October€16,€1997,Ð -&& Ðwithout€participation€by€the€Board.€On€December€30,€1997,€the€Arbitrator€issued€hisÐ /(( Ðopinion€and€award€sustaining€ten€of€the€Associationððs€grievances.€€The€arbitratorÐ 1** Ðexpressly€considered€and€found€that€the€Agreement€remained€in€full€force€and€effectÐ 3,, Ðuntil€a€successor€agreement€was€negotiated€and€ratified€and€that€all€terms€andÐ 5.. Ðconditions€of€the€Agreement€remained€in€full€force€and€effect€at€all€times€material€toÐ 700 Ðthe€actions€giving€rise€to€the€grievances.€€Ð 922 Ðà 4 àà Œ àThe€Board€refused€to€abide€by€the€decision€of€the€Arbitrator.€€PlaintiffsÐ  Ðthen€brought€this€action,€asking€the€Court€to€declare€the€Agreement€valid€and€binding,Ð   Ðrequiring€arbitration€of€grievances€in€good€faith,€and€to€declare€that€the€Boardððs€failureÐ   Ðto€participate€in€the€arbitration€was€unlawful€under€the€provision€of€T.C.A.€ðð€49„5„Ð   Ð606(a)(8).€€Ð  Ðà 4 àà Œ àIn€granting€plaintiffððs€summary€judgment,€the€Trial€Court€found€noÐ   Ðgenuine€issue€of€material€fact.€€Specifically,€the€Court€said€the€grievance€procedureÐ   Ðwhich€existed€under€the€written€Agreement€remained€valid€beyond€three€years€fromÐ  Ðthe€effective€date€of€the€contract.€€Further,€the€Court€found€that€by€refusing€to€followÐ  Ðthe€grievance€procedure€set€forth€in€the€Agreement,€the€Board€was€guilty€of€refusingÐ  Ðto€negotiate€in€good€faith€in€violation€of€T.C.A.€ðð€49„5„609(a)(3).€€The€award€of€theÐ  Ðarbitrator€was€confirmed,€enforced€and€made€a€part€of€the€judgment€of€the€Court.€€Ð  Ðò òà 4 àó óà Œ àWhen€evaluating€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€the€trial€court€shouldÐ  Ðconsider€ð ð(1)€whether€a€òòfactualóó€dispute€exists;€(2)€whether€the€disputed€fact€is€òòmaterialóóÐ ! Ðto€the€outcome€of€the€case;€and€(3)€whether€the€disputed€fact€creates€a€òògenuineóó€issueÐ # Ðfor€a€trial.ðð€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€214€(Tenn.€1993).€€If€the€court€determinesÐ % Ðthat€there€is€no€genuine€issue€as€to€any€material€fact,€then€the€movant€is€entitled€toÐ '  Ðjudgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€òòId.óó€at€215.€€€No€presumption€of€correctness€attaches€toÐ )"" Ðdecisions€granting€summary€judgments€where€they€involve€only€questions€of€law.€Ð +$$ ÐòòHembree€v.€Stateóó,€925€S.W.2d€513€(Tenn.€1996);€Tenn.R.App.P.€13(d).€€Ð -&& Ðà 4 àà Œ àThe€Board€does€not€dispute€the€wording€of€the€Agreement,€thatÐ /(( Ðgrievances€were€filed,€or€that€the€Board€refused€to€review€those€grievances€or€submitÐ 1** Ðto€arbitration.€€While€the€defendants€contend€there€is€an€issue€of€fact€as€to€the€durationÐ 3,, Ðof€the€agreement,€the€validity€of€the€duration€provision€is€a€question€of€law.€€Ð 5.. Ðà 4 àà Œ àBecause€the€National€Labor€Relations€Act€exempts€from€the€definitionÐ 700 Ðof€ð ðemployerðð€any€state€or€any€political€subdivision€thereof,€state€law€governsÐ 922 Ðemployer„employee€relations.€€The€Education€Professional€Negotiations€Act,€T.C.A.Ð  Ððð49„5„601€òòet.€seqóó.,€authorizes€collective€bargaining€between€local€governments€andÐ   Ðð ðprofessional€employees.ðð€€Thus,€because€the€present€case€involves€the€representativeÐ   Ðof€ð ðprofessional€employeesðð€and€a€local€board€of€education,€the€authority€to€enter€intoÐ   Ða€collective€bargaining€agreement€or€memorandum€of€agreement€between€the€partiesÐ  Ðderives€from€T.C.A.€ðð49„5„601òò€et.€seq.óóÐ   Ðà 4 àà Œ àThe€provision€in€the€relevant€Code€section€as€to€the€duration€ofÐ   Ðagreements€states€in€pertinent€part:€€ð ðThe€board€of€education€may€enter€into€suchÐ  Ðmemorandum€for€a€period€not€in€excess€of€three€(3)€years.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð49„5„612(b).€TheÐ  Ðduration€clause€in€the€Agreement€provides€that€it€will€be€in€effect€for€three€years,€andÐ  Ðwill€ð ðremain€in€full€force€and€effect€until€a€successor€agreement€had€been€ratified.ðð€Ð  ÐThe€Board€refers€to€this€as€an€ð ðevergreenðð€clause,€purporting€to€extend€the€term€of€theÐ  Ðagreement€indefinitely,€and€argues€that€this€is€in€clear€contravention€to€the€language€ofÐ  ÐT.C.A.€ðð49„5„612(b),€and€is€therefore€void.€€The€plaintiff,€on€the€other€hand,€arguesÐ ! Ðthat€the€Arbitratorððs€interpretation€of€the€duration€clause€is€binding,€and€the€ArbitratorÐ # Ðfound€the€clause€to€be€consistent€with€statutory€language.Ð % Ðà 4 àà Œ àWe€conclude€that€the€issue€of€whether€the€duration€clause€violated€theÐ '  Ðstatutory€language€is€irrelevant.€€Moreover,€the€Chancery€Court€did€not€rule€on€theÐ )"" Ðvalidity€of€the€duration€provision€in€the€Agreement.€€The€Court€simply€held€that€theÐ +$$ Ðgrievance€procedures€that€were€provided€for€in€the€Agreement€were€applicable€to€theÐ -&& Ðparties.Ð /(( Ðà 4 àà Œ àUnder€the€Education€Professional€Negotiations€Act,€the€parties€areÐ 1** Ðrequired€to€bargain€in€good€faith€the€following€conditions€of€employment:€salaries€orÐ 3,, Ðwages,€grievance€procedures,€insurance,€fringe€benefits,€working€conditions,€leave,Ð 5.. Ðstudent€discipline€procedures,€and€payroll€deductions.€€T.C.A.€ðð49„5„611.€€While€inÐ 700 Ðthe€process€of€bargaining,€one€side€may€not€unilaterally€change€the€terms€andÐ 922 Ðconditions€of€employment€without€first€reaching€an€impasse€in€the€bargainingÐ  Ðregarding€that€term€or€condition.€€òòSmith€County€Educ.€Assððn€v.€Andersonóó,€676€S.W.2dÐ   Ð328€(Tenn€1984).€€òòSee€also€óóLarry€D.€Schaefer,€Annotation,€òòWhat€Constitutes€UnfairÐ   ÐLabor€Practice€Under€State€Public€Employee€Relations€Actóó,€9€A.L.R.4th€20€(1981).Ð   Ðà 4 àà Œ àIn€òòSmith€Countyóó,€the€Supreme€Court€determined€it€to€be€an€unlawful€actÐ  Ðfor€the€Board€of€Education€to€make€unilateral€changes€to€terms€and€conditions€ofÐ   Ðemployment€that€are€mandatory€subjects€of€bargaining€and€which€were€currently€underÐ   Ðnegotiations.€€There,€the€Board€stopped€paying€insurance€premiums€and€stoppedÐ  Ðmaking€payroll€deductions€for€professional€dues€while€negotiations€on€a€newÐ  Ðagreement€was€underway.€€The€Court€found€this€to€amount€to€an€unlawful€act€underÐ  ÐT.C.A.€ðð48„5„609€and€a€refusal€to€bargain€in€good€faith.€€The€Court€required€theÐ  ÐBoard€to€maintain€the€ð ðstatus€quoðð€while€negotiations€were€ongoing.€€Ð  Ðà 4 àà Œ àThe€Agreement€that€went€into€effect€on€July€1,€1993€set€forth€aÐ  Ðgrievance€procedure€that€provided€for€submission€of€the€grievance€to€final€and€bindingÐ ! Ðarbitration.€€When€the€grievances€at€issue€were€filed€with€the€Board,€the€Board€refusedÐ # Ðto€follow€the€grievance€procedures€provided€for€in€the€Agreement,€on€the€grounds€thatÐ % Ðthe€Agreement€was€no€longer€in€effect€and€that€there€was€no€current€contract.Ð '  ÐHowever,€at€the€time,€the€Board€and€the€Association€were€in€the€midst€of€negotiating€aÐ )"" Ðnew€agreement.€There€is€no€evidence€that€the€parties€had€reached€an€impasseÐ +$$ Ðregarding€the€grievance€procedures€to€be€included€in€the€new€contract.€€Thus€theÐ -&& Ðemployer€was€bound€to€preserve€the€status€quo,€which€included€maintaining€the€sameÐ /(( Ðgrievance€procedures€that€were€in€effect€under€the€prior€contract.òò€€Smith€County;Ð 1** ÐN.L.R.B.€v.€Katzóó,€369€U.S.€736,€82€S.Ct.€1107,€8€L.Ed.2d€230€(1962).€€C.f.€òòNoldeÐ 3,, ÐBrothers€v.€Local€358€Bakery€&€Confectionary€Workersóó,€430€U.S.€2d€3€(1977)Ð 5.. Ð(holding€that€the€expiration€of€the€contract€would€not€terminate€a€duty€to€arbitrateÐ 700 Ðprovided€in€the€contract.Ð 922 Ðà 4 àà Œ àThe€Board€has€raised€the€issue€of€whether€the€holding€in€òòSmith€County€óóÐ  Ðacts€to€render€the€three„year€provision€of€T.C.A.€ðð49„5„612€meaningless.€€òòSmithóóÐ   ÐòòCounty€óóadopts€the€rule€that€while€negotiations€are€ongoing,€neither€side€may€makeÐ   Ðunilateral€changes€to€the€terms€of€employment.€€The€terms€of€employment€mayÐ   Ðchange,€however,€with€the€passage€of€a€new€contract€or€once€an€impasse€has€beenÐ  Ðreached.€€The€holding€in€òòSmith€Countyóó€does€not€perpetuate€terms€of€the€prior€contract,Ð   Ðbut€rather€requires€the€parties€to€maintain€the€status€quo€while€bargaining€a€newÐ   Ðcontract.€€Because€the€Board€was€bound€by€the€established€grievance€procedures,€itÐ  Ðcould€not€refuse€to€review€the€grievances€at€issue€in€this€case,€and€it€was€proper€underÐ  Ðthe€procedures€for€the€grievances€to€be€submitted€to€an€arbitrator€for€a€final€andÐ  Ðbinding€decision.Ð  Ðà 4 àà Œ àUnder€the€Education€Professional€Negotiations€Act€the€parties€wereÐ  Ðrequired€to€bargain€in€good€faith€on€the€matters€set€forth€in€T.C.A.€ðð49„5„611Ð  Ðheretofore€enumerated,€and€it€is€an€unlawful€act€for€the€Board€to€refuse€to€bargain€inÐ ! Ðgood€faith.€€T.C.A.€ðð49„5„609.Ð # Ðà 4 àà Œ àIn€òòSmith€Countyóó,€the€Supreme€Court€found€that€the€school€boardððsÐ % Ðunilateral€changes€in€the€terms€and€conditions€of€employment€while€negotiations€of€aÐ '  Ðnew€contract€were€underway€constituted€a€failure€to€negotiate€in€good€faith.€€InÐ )"" Ðreaching€its€decision,€the€Court€adopted€the€rationale€of€the€majority€of€cases€in€whichÐ +$$ Ðsuch€questions€have€been€considered€under€other€state€public€employee€labor€relationsÐ -&& Ðacts.€€à 4 àà Œ àÐ /(( Ðà 4 àà Œ àUnder€the€National€Labor€Relations€Act,€an€employerððs€unilateralÐ 1** Ðchange€in€conditions€of€employment€which€are€under€negotiation€constitutes€a€refusalÐ 3,, Ðto€bargain€in€good€faith.€€òòNLRB€v.€Katzóó.€€Courts€of€other€states€have€addressed€theÐ 5.. Ðissue€of€whether€the€principles€set€forth€in€òòKatzóó€apply€to€collective€bargaining€in€theÐ 700 Ðpublic€sector,€and€a€majority€have€held€that€they€do.òò€€Smith€Countyóó,€676€S.W.2d€atÐ 922 Ð339.€€€Ð  Ðà 4 àà Œ àThe€Court€in€òòGalloway€Township€Board€of€Education€v.€GallowayóóòòÐ   ÐòòóóTownship€Education€Assððn,€óó78€N.J.€25,€393€A.2d€218€(1978)€cited€the€rule€from€òòKatzÐ   Ðóóand€went€on€to€say:Ð   ÐÓÓà 4 àà0 Œ àThe€basis€of€the€rule€prohibiting€unilateral€changes€by€an€employerÐ  Ðduring€negotiations€is€the€recognition€of€the€importance€of€maintainingÐ   Ðthe€then„prevailing€terms€and€conditions€of€employment€during€thisÐ   Ðdelicate€period€until€new€terms€and€conditions€are€arrived€at€byÐ   Ðagreement.€€Unilateral€changes€disruptive€of€this€status€quo€are€unlawfulÐ   Ðbecause€they€frustrate€the€ððstatutory€objective€of€establishing€à ¤ àworkingÐ   Ðconditions€through€bargaining.ðð€€òòNLRB€v.€Katzóó,€369€U.S.€at€744,€82€S.Ct.Ð  Ðat€1112.ÐŒ (#Œ (# ÐÌ393€A.2d€at€230.Ð  ÐÌÓÓà 4 àà Œ àòòAccord:€Appeal€of€Cumberland€Valley€School€District,€Etc.óó,€483€Pa.Ð  Ð134,€394€A.2d€946€(1978).€€(During€the€course€of€negotiating€a€new€agreement,€theÐ  Ðold€agreement€expired€resulting€in€the€school€districtððs€termination€of€payment€ofÐ  Ðhealth€insurance€benefits.€€It€was€held€that€this€constituted€a€refusal€to€bargain€in€goodÐ   Ðfaith.)Ð " Ðà 4 àà Œ àOur€Supreme€Court€has€acknowledged€that€ð ð[t]he€stated€purpose€of€ourÐ $ Ðcollective€bargaining€statutes€is€the€establishment€and€maintenance€of€professionalÐ & Ðworking€conditions€and€ððthe€highest€possible€education€standards.ðððð€òòSmith€Countyóó€atÐ (!! Ð339,€òòcitingóó€T.C.A.€ðð49„5„601.€€Further€the€Court€said€ð ðour€statute€favors€the€collectiveÐ *## Ðbargaining€process€as€a€means€whereby€both€parties€can€resolve€their€differencesÐ ,%% Ðthrough€open€discussion.ðð€€òòId.€€óóBecause€payroll€deductions€and€insurance€wereÐ .'' Ðmandatory€subjects€of€bargaining,€the€Boardððs€unilateral€change€was€said€to€be€ð ðanÐ 0)) Ðincident€of€bad€faith.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€340.€Ð 2++ Ðà 4 àà Œ àIn€this€case,€the€Trial€Judge€found€the€Defendant€Board€was€guilty€ofÐ 4-- Ðrefusing€to€bargain€in€good€faith€when€it€refused€to€submit€grievances€to€arbitration.Ð 6// ÐBecause€grievance€procedures€are€a€mandatory€subject€of€bargaining€under€T.C.A.Ð 811 Ððð49„5„611,€the€rule€in€òòSmith€Countyóó€controls.€€It€is€an€act€of€bad€faith€to€unilaterallyÐ :33 Ðchange€a€term€of€employment€that€is€a€mandatory€subject€of€bargaining€whileÐ  Ðnegotiations€are€underway.€€Ð   Ðà 4 àà Œ àThe€defendant€attempts€to€distinguish€òòSmith€Countyóó,€and€argues:Ð   ÐÓÓà0 4 àà0Œ 4(#4(#àà ä àThe€Board€respectfully€contends€that€the€òòSmithóó€case€is€notÐ   Ðapplicable.€€It€appears€that€the€òòSmithóó€holding€does€not€address€grievanceÐ  Ðprocedure€or€arbitration€but€is€rather€limited€in€unilateral€changes€inÐ  Ðmonetary€benefits.€€The€case€does€not€address€the€situation€in€this€caseÐ   Ðwhere€grievances€were€filed€after€the€end€of€the€term€of€theÐ   Ðmemorandum€of€agreement.Ð Œ (#Œ (# ÐÌÓÓà 4 àà Œ àThe€Defendantððs€argument€does€not€make€a€meaningful€distinctionÐ   Ðbetween€this€case€and€òòSmith€Countyóó,€nor€does€it€cite€any€authority€to€support€itsÐ  Ðposition.€€It€is€true€that€the€two€cases€deal€with€different€terms€and€conditions€ofÐ  Ðemployment.€€However,€both€the€conditions€in€òòSmithóó€and€those€in€this€case€areÐ  Ðmandatory€subjects€of€bargaining,€T.C.A.€ðð49„5„611.€€Moreover,€the€Supreme€CourtÐ  Ðadopted€the€rule€of€òòKatzóó€that€ð ðan€employerððs€unilateral€change€in€conditions€ofÐ  Ðemployment€which€are€under€negotiation€constitutes€a€refusal€to€bargain€in€goodÐ   Ðfaithðð.€òòId.óó€at€338„340.€€Ð " Ðà 4 àà Œ àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€andÐ $ Ðremand€with€cost€of€the€appeal€assessed€to€the€appellants.Ð & ÐÓÓÌà@‚‚+‚àòòˆà D àÌóóà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à__________________________Ð *## Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.Ð +$$ ÐÌCONCUR:Ð -&& ÐÌÌÌ___________________________Ð 1** ÐHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.Ð 2++ ÐÌÌÌ___________________________Ð 6// ÐCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.Ð 700 Ð