ÿWPC#  Ó:ÑJGq¬Tq„¬.°x£q•X¨ì íPÛå úÿ=¸îÈ/iÛùŽ Q-–þ7D¸••Õ¾V—¡&WÖ"%”«Lªdºå·\žÅª)î‘ðn¯ Sü‡%ÌOÙ™@㢞ÔRÛ¼¡éÁF8ž‚ú°úÅvÎ)ƒQy}Ý™-Úá³*àégpö%fc{ÅWJIéïøhÛžoe:«ÄS>Rø AyL[kÄ´i˜>ú?ES%‘Ωã Wšï'ãâ,ûbDV¤Ð|ä»Ç7wãŒ57½n'ØÏ+NF·CtøÞÒI(nW°üå#ôóÜDÍ~] Ê}eä)Zï“ûpÀ«DŸ—¼¢.·i¡1:ɪ¾gcfYû«š>־؅Q}p¿˜ÌÂ8i· –Íâ: ©aÄLÑîNýW#ÉÂUN‹ %Ù 0:ß  ^ 7 wC 4G [ j ml UNƒ bÑ ÚÙ N³÷µµÀ¬¬ 0DllE°\²²²²²²²²²[ 0iiii B˜\\IB01S02\CLERKJACÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(üœ$¡¡ÔUSUS.,Ô McCarroll COAHighers Exh MOULillieLoudermillSorrellsSprecherbackpayS]ince NLRA VacaSipesThurmonconcededlyMageeKilpatrick LTG LufttechnischeWallerunrefutedMetcalfrevdMcClenahan I]tIntlBhoodì‚a1Ï 6hö0ê:i¢×+003|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular- ù- ÐÝ ƒRKw$ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô ]òXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔLoveððs€initial€complaint€named€the€Shelby€County€Correction€Center,€Robert€Sprecher,€Robert€Moore,€andÐ ° ÐJim€Rout,€Mayor€of€Shelby€County,€Tennessee,€as€additional€defendants.€€Love€later€voluntarily€dismissed€thoseÐ qÁ Ðdefendants.€€The€amended€complaint€also€included€revised€claims€for€relief. íÝ ƒRKw$ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô ]òXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€the€first€step€of€the€process,€or€Step€I,€the€union€steward€brings€an€oral€grievance€to€the€county€shiftÐ ° Ðcommander€on€behalf€of€the€employee€within€five€working€days€of€the€incident€at€issue.€€The€shift€commander€mustÐ qÁ Ðconsider€the€grievance€and€make€a€decision.€€If€the€employee€is€dissatisfied€with€the€decision,€he€may€proceed€toÐ 2‚ ÐStep€II,€which€requires€that€the€grievance€be€presented€in€writing€to€the€operations€manager€or€his€designatedÐ óC Ðrepresentative.€€The€operations€manager€reviews€the€grievance€and€issues€a€decision.€€If€the€employee€is€dissatisfiedÐ ´ Ðwith€the€outcome€in€Step€II,€the€aggrieved€employee€may€proceed€to€Step€III,€whò òó óere€the€grievance€may€be€presentedÐ uÅ Ðin€writing€to€the€Administrator€of€Security.€€The€Administrator€of€Security€then€makes€arrangements€to€meet€with€theÐ 6 † ÐUnion,€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô,€and€a€management€representative€so€that€each€will€be€afforded€an€opportunity€to€present€hisÐ ÷ G Ðposition€on€the€matter. ¶Ý ƒRKw$ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô ]òXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔLove€was€54€years€old€at€the€time€of€the€incident.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó RÝ ƒRKw$ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô ]òXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Loudermill€hearing€is€the€first€hearing€in€the€grievance€process,€in€which€the€employee€is€given€theÐ ° Ðopportunity€to€present€reasons€why€he€should€not€receive€the€proposed€discipline. QÝ ƒRKw$ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô ]òXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔPrior€to€the€trial,€the€defendants€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss,€claiming€that€Loveððs€lawsuit€was€preempted€byÐ ° Ðthe€NLRA.€€On€February€13,€2003,€the€trial€court€denied€the€motion€to€dismiss,€concluding€that€federal€law€wasÐ qÁ Ðinapplicable€because€the€NLRA€does€not€apply€to€employer„employee€relations€of€any€state€or€political€subdivisionÐ 2‚ Ðthereof,€citing€ò òòòCity€of€Alcoa€v.€Intððl€Bððhood€of€Elec.€Workers€Local€Union€760ó óóó,€308€S.W.2d€476€(Tenn.€1957).€€TheÐ óC Ðdefendants€now€concede€that€Loveððs€claim€is€not€preempted,€but€argue€that€the€standard€applied€in€federal€NLRAÐ µ Ðcases€should€apply€to€his€claim.€€€(.G2Kw$¤¤Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô ]òXXÔ dÝ ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ X‘ÍXXXÔÔ‡ ¼ÔûX X‘ÍÔÑ€ ÑÑ8€r†XXdédÈ8ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñà@ò ò ìàÔ#† X‘ÍX» ¼ÔÃ\#ÔÔ‡ î2TîX X‘ÍÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@òò%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#† X‘ÍXî î2T#ÔÔ‡ ¼ÔûX X‘ÍԈРÓ# ÐÓ  ÓMay€18,€2004€SessionÐ öF ÐÔ#† X‘ÍX» ¼Ôè#ÔÌò òÔ‡ ¼ÔûX X‘ÍÔR.€L.€LOVE€Ð ï? Ðv.€Ð  P ÐAMERICAN€FEDERATION€OF€STATE,€COUNTYòò€óóAND€Ð  a ÐMUNICIPAL€EMPLOYEES€LOCAL€1733,òò€andóóÐ " r ÐWILLIE€JOE€ALEXANDERÔ#† X‘ÍX» ¼ÔÃ9#ÔÐ 3 ƒ ÐÌAn€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ .~  Ðà@@øøìàNo.€300277€€€€€€John€R.€McCarroll,€Jr.,€Judge€Ð h  ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<Õ` AßÐ Ö& ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2003„01554„COA„R3„CV€„€Filed€November€1,€2004Ð Ï ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<¢` AßÐ £ó Ðó óÌÌÓ  ÓThis€is€a€claim€against€a€union€for€negligence.€€The€plaintiff€was€a€correctional€officer€at€a€countyÐ „Ô Ðcorrectional€facility€and€a€member€of€the€defendant€union.€The€employee€was€terminated€from€hisÐ m½ Ðjob€after€he€was€arrested€for€possession€of€a€controlled€substance.€€The€employee€sought€the€unionððsÐ V¦ Ðassistance€in€appealing€his€termination€through€the€county€grievance€process.€€After€his€grievanceÐ ? Ðwas€preliminarily€denied,€the€union€had€fifteen€days€in€which€to€appeal€the€denial€by€requestingÐ (x Ðarbitration€of€the€employeeððs€case.€€The€employee€urged€the€union€to€file€a€request€for€arbitration,Ð a Ðand€the€defendant€union€officer€agreed€to€do€so.€€However,€the€defendant€union€officer€failed€toÐ úJ Ðsubmit€the€request€for€arbitration€by€the€deadline,€and€consequently€the€request€was€denied€asÐ ã3 Ðuntimely.€€The€employee€then€sued€the€union€and€the€union€officer,€alleging€that€the€union€officerððsÐ Ì Ðconduct€was€negligent€and€that€it€constituted€a€breach€of€contract.€€After€a€bench€trial,€the€trial€courtÐ µ Ðrejected€the€employeeððs€breach€of€contract€claim.€€It€concluded€that€the€defendantsðð€failure€to€requestÐ ž î Ðarbitration€in€a€timely€manner€was€negligent,€but€that€the€negligence€did€not€cause€the€employeeððsÐ ‡!×  Ðdamages.€€The€employee€now€appeals.€€We€affirm€the€dismissal€of€the€breach€of€contract€claim,€butÐ p"À! Ðreverse€the€dismissal€of€the€negligence€claim,€finding€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€theÐ Y#©" Ðtrial€courtððs€conclusion€that€the€employee€failed€to€prove€causation€of€his€damages.€€€€€Ð B$’# ÐÓÓÌò òà @ àTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€is€Ð &d!% ÐAffirmed€in€Part€and€Reversed€in€Partó óÐ þ&N"& ÐÌòòÓ  ÓHolly€M.€Kirby,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€Court,€in€which€òòAlan€E.€Highers,€J.,€óóand€òòDavidÐ Ñ(!$( ÐR.€Farmer,€J.óó,€joined.Ð º) %) ÐÌÐ  Œ+Ü&+ ÐKenneth€P.€Jones,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€R.€L.€Love.€€€Ð ° ÐÌMurray€B.€Wells,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€American€Federation€of€State,€County€andÐ ‚Ò ÐMunicipal€Employees€Local€1733.Ð k» ÐÌWillie€Joe€Alexander,€appellee,€òòpro€seóó.Ð =  ÐÌÓò Óò òOPINIONó óÐ  _ ÐÌÓ  Óà  àFrom€November€1989€until€his€termination€on€June€30,€1998,€Plaintiff/Appellant€R.€L.€LoveÐ â 2  Ð(ð ðLoveðð)€was€employed€by€Shelby€County,€Tennessee,€as€a€correctional€officer€at€the€Shelby€CountyÐ Ë   ÐCorrectional€Center€in€Memphis€(ð ðPenal€Farmðð).€€As€a€correctional€officer,€Love€was€a€dues„payingÐ ´  Ðmember€of€Defendant/Appellee€American€Federation€of€State,€County€and€Municipal€EmployeesÐ í  ÐLocal€1733€(ð ðthe€Unionðð).€€Defendant/Appellee€Willie€Joe€Alexander€(ð ðAlexanderðð)€served€asÐ †Ö  ÐPresident€and/or€Acting€Director€of€the€Union.€€Alexander€was€in€charge€of€the€day„to„dayÐ o¿  Ðoperations€of€the€Union.Ð X¨  ÐÌà  àMid„morning€on€June€5,€1998,€Love€was€stopped€in€his€car€by€a€police€officer€in€MemphisÐ *z Ðfor€disregarding€a€stop€sign.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€On€the€front€seat€of€Loveððs€vehicle,€the€police€officer€observed€whatÐ c Ðturned€out€to€be€a€marijuana€cigarette.€€Love€was€arrested€and€charged€with€disregarding€a€stop€signÐ üL Ðas€well€as€for€possession€of€a€controlled€substance.€€Later€that€day,€Love€was€released€without€bond.€Ð å5 ÐLove€called€his€supervisor€at€the€Penal€Farm€to€inform€him€of€the€arrest.€€Love€was€later€suspendedÐ Î Ðwithout€pay€from€his€job€at€the€Penal€Farm€based€on€the€seriousness€of€the€charges€against€him.Ð · ÐÌà  àThe€administrative€grievance€process€for€employees€of€the€Penal€Farm€is€outlined€in€theÐ ‰Ù ÐMemorandum€of€Understanding€(ð ðMOUðð)€between€the€Shelby€County€Government€CorrectionÐ r ÐCenter€(ð ðCountyðð)€and€the€Union.€€The€MOU€is€a€voluntary€agreement€designed€ð ðto€assureÐ [« Ðharmonious€relations€between€the€County€and€the€Union€and€to€provide€for€peaceful€adjustment€ofÐ D” Ðdifferences€which€may€arise€related€to€wages,€hours€and€other€working€conditions€of€employmentÐ -} Ðconsistent€with€the€Labor€Policy€of€Shelby€County.ðð€€While€the€MOU€is€not€an€enforceable€contract,Ð f Ðit€represents€the€understanding€between€the€Union€and€the€County.€€Ð ÿO ÐÌà  àOn€June€7,€1998,€pursuant€to€the€grievance€procedure€outlined€in€the€MOU,€Union€StewardÐ Ñ!!  ÐLillie€Wilson€filed€a€grievance€on€Loveððs€behalf€with€the€County.€€On€June€15,€1998,€Love€receivedÐ º" ! Ðnotification€that€a€ð ðLoudermill€hearingðð׃Q×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€would€be€held€to€determine€whether€his€employment€wouldÐ £#ó" Ðbe€terminated.€€The€Loudermill€hearing€was€conducted€on€June€18,€1998,€and€the€DepartmentÐ Œ$Ü# Ðdetermined€that€Loveððs€employment€would€be€terminated€effective€June€30,€1998.€€The€stated€basesÐ u%Å $ Ðfor€his€termination€were€willful€disregard€of€lawful€orders€and€violation€of€administrative€policiesÐ ^&®!% Ðand€procedures.€€It€is€undisputed€that€this€arose€solely€out€of€the€marijuana€found€in€Loveððs€car.€€AtÐ G'—"& Ðthe€time€his€employment€was€terminated,€the€criminal€charges€against€Love€were€still€pending€inÐ ° ÐShelby€County€criminal€court.Ð ™é ÐÌà  àOn€July€6,€1998,€the€Union€filed€another€grievance€on€Loveððs€behalf,€known€as€a€ð ðStep€IIIððÐ k» Ðgrievance,€referring€to€the€third€step€in€the€grievance€process€outlined€in€the€MOU.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€Ô#†Xr†XX X‘Í=#ÔÔ‡ X‘ÍXXXr†Ô€Ô#†Xr†XX X‘Í#Ô€The€grievanceÐ T¤ Ðasserted€that€Love€was€wrongfully€terminated€because€he€had€not€yet€been€convicted€of€the€criminalÐ =  Ðcharges€against€him,€and€requested€that€Loveððs€termination€be€canceled,€that€all€charges€against€himÐ & v Ðbe€dropped,€and€that€all€documentation€regarding€the€termination€be€removed€from€his€employmentÐ  _ Ðfile.€€In€the€grievance,€Love€also€sought€reinstatement,€as€well€as€his€lost€wages€for€the€time€duringÐ ø H Ðwhich€he€was€suspended.€€Ð á 1  ÐÌà  àOn€July€27,€1988,€the€County€held€a€Step€III€hearing€on€Loveððs€grievance.€€The€CountyÐ ³  Ðdenied€the€grievance€in€a€letter€dated€August€5,€1998,€addressed€to€Union€Director€Dorothy€Crook.€Ð œì  ÐThe€letter€was€faxed€to€the€Union€that€day,€and€it€is€undisputed€that€the€Union€received€the€faxedÐ …Õ  Ðletter.€€At€this€time,€the€criminal€charges€against€Love€were€still€pending€in€Shelby€County€criminalÐ n¾  Ðcourt.€€Ð W§  ÐÌØØà  àUnder€the€terms€of€the€MOU,€after€the€denial€of€Loveððs€Step€III€grievance,€the€Union€hadÐ )y Ðseven€(7)€business€days€from€the€date€of€the€denial€within€which€to€appeal€the€matter€to€the€ShelbyÐ b ÐCounty€Civil€Service€Merit€Board€(ð ðMerit€Boardðð)€for€review,€or,€in€the€alternative,€fifteen€(15)Ð ûK Ðbusiness€days€in€which€to€request€arbitration€of€Loveððs€termination.€€The€MOU€provides€that€onlyÐ ä4 Ðthe€Union€can€request€arbitration;€the€County€would€not€accept€a€request€for€arbitration€from€anÐ Í Ðindividual€member.Ð ¶ ÐÌà  àOn€August€11,€1998,€Love€received€a€copy€of€the€August€5,€1998€letter€to€the€Union€denyingÐ ˆØ Ðhis€claim.€€The€next€day,€on€August€12,€1998,€Love€went€to€the€Union€hall€and€met€with€Alexander,Ð qÁ Ðthe€Unionððs€President€and€Acting€Director.€€In€this€meeting,€Love€formally€requested€that€the€UnionÐ Zª Ðsubmit€his€termination€to€arbitration€or€to€the€Merit€Board€for€review.€€Love€told€Alexander€that€heÐ C“ Ðwas€willing€to€appeal€the€termination€through€either€route,€but€that€he€preferred€arbitration.€€LoveÐ ,| Ðreminded€Alexander€that€the€time€for€appeals€had€begun€to€run.€€Alexander€told€Love€that€he€hadÐ e Ðjust€finished€preparing€some€cases€for€the€Merit€Board,€and€assured€Love€that€he€would€call€to€setÐ þN Ðup€his€appeal.€€Love€asked€Alexander€if€there€was€anything€else€for€Love€to€do€to€expedite€theÐ ç 7 Ðmatter,€but€Alexander€said€no,€that€he€would€take€care€of€it.€€Ð Ð!   Ðâ âÐ ¹" ! Ðà  àA€few€days€later,€on€August€18,€1998,€the€Shelby€County€criminal€court€dismissed€theÐ ° Ðâ âcriminal€charges€against€Love.€€Love€had€filed€in€the€criminal€court€the€affidavit€of€his€nephew,Ð ™é ÐJasper€Love,€who€admitted€that€the€marijuana€found€in€Loveððs€car€belonged€to€him,€not€to€Love.€Ð ‚Ò ÐUltimately,€Love€paid€a€fine€for€disregarding€the€stop€sign,€and€the€charge€of€possession€of€aÐ k» Ðcontrolled€substance€was€dropped.€€The€record€on€Loveððs€criminal€charge€was€expunged.Ð T¤ ÐÌà  àIn€the€meantime,€Alexander,€despite€his€assurances€to€Love,€failed€to€make€a€timely€requestÐ & v Ðfor€review€of€Loveððs€case€with€either€the€Merit€Board€or€through€arbitration.€Ô‡ X‘ÍXXXr†Ô€On€September€15,Ð  _ Ð1998,€well€after€the€fifteen„day€time€limitation€to€request€arbitration,€Alexander€belatedly€sent€aÐ ø H Ðletter€to€the€County€seeking€arbitration€of€Loveððs€termination.€€On€September€23,€1998,€the€CountyÐ á 1  Ðsent€Alexander€a€letter€denying€the€Unionððs€request€for€arbitration€as€untimely.€€At€that€point,€theÐ Ê   Ðtermination€of€Loveððs€employment€became€final.Ð ³  ÐÌà  àOn€January€15,€1999,€Love€filed€this€lawsuit€in€the€trial€court€below.ØØ׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€On€November€2,€2002,Ð …Õ  ÐLove€filed€an€amended€complaint€against€the€Union€and€Alexander€(collectively,€ð ðdefendantsðð),Ð n¾  Ðalleging€that€they€were€negligent€in€failing€to€file€a€timely€appeal€of€the€termination€of€hisÐ W§  Ðemployment.€€As€a€result€of€the€defendantsðð€negligence,€Love€asserted,€the€termination€of€hisÐ @ Ðemployment€became€final€and€he€was€precluded€from€seeking€reinstatement,€despite€the€fact€that€theÐ )y Ðcriminal€charges€against€him€had€been€dismissed€and€his€work€record€was€exemplary.€Ð b ÐConsequently,€Love€contended,€the€defendantsðð€negligence€caused€him€to€suffer€monetary€damagesÐ ûK Ðincluding,€but€not€limited€to,€lost€wages,€lost€employment€benefits,€pain,€suffering,€and€mentalÐ ä4 Ðanguish.€€Love€also€asserted€a€breach€of€contract€claim€against€the€defendants,€claiming€that,€whenÐ Í ÐAlexander€promised€to€file€an€appeal€on€Loveððs€behalf,€the€Union€and€Alexander€ð ðthereby€enteredÐ ¶ Ðinto€an€agreement€with€Love€to€timely€appeal€his€termination.ðð€€The€failure€to€do€so,€Love€alleged,Ð Ÿï Ðconstituted€a€breach€of€that€oral€agreement.€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àOn€May€13€and€14,€2003,€a€bench€trial€was€conducted.€€At€the€outset€of€the€trial,€the€partiesÐ Zª Ðpresented€to€the€trial€court€thirty„three€stipulated€exhibits,€which€were€entered€into€evidence.€Ð C“ ÐAmong€those€documents€was€the€MOU€between€the€County€and€the€Union,€several€favorableÐ ,| Ðevaluations€of€Loveððs€performance€issued€during€Loveððs€tenure€at€the€Penal€Farm,€and€copies€of€theÐ e Ðgrievances€filed€on€Loveððs€behalf€and€the€ensuing€grievance€denials.Ð þN ÐÌà  àAlso€included€in€the€stipulated€exhibits€were€previous€decisions€of€the€Civil€Service€MeritÐ Ð!   ÐBoard,€submitted€to€support€Loveððs€argument€that,€under€established€County€policy,€he€would€haveÐ ¹" ! Ðbeen€reinstated€had€his€case€been€arbitrated.€€These€previous€decisions€included€a€published€orderÐ ¢#ò" Ðof€the€Merit€Board€regarding€the€case€of€correctional€officer€Jeffery€Sorrells€(ð ðSorrellsðð).€€TheÐ ‹$Û# Ðdecision€on€Sorrells€was€dated€March€4,€1998,€shortly€before€Loveððs€arrest.€€In€that€case,€SorrellsÐ t%Ä $ Ðhad€been€suspended€from€work€as€a€result€of€his€arrest€for€assault.€€In€the€hearing€on€Sorrells,€theÐ ]&­!% ÐDirector€of€the€Correction€Center,€Rob€Sprecher,€testified€ð ðthat€when€a[]€Corrections€Officer€isÐ F'–"& Ðarrested€for€a€job€related€misdemeanor€and€charged€with€a€crime,€they€are€put€on€suspension€withoutÐ /(#' Ðpay€status€pending€final€court€action.ðð€€Sprecher€added€that,€ð ðif€the€Petitioner€is€acquitted€and€theÐ ° Ðcharges€pending€against€the€Petitioner€are€dismissed,€the€Petitioner€will€be€returned€to€work€withÐ ™é Ðfull€backpay€and€seniority€rights.ðð€€Sorrells€had€requested€that€he€be€permitted€to€return€to€work€untilÐ ‚Ò Ða€final€court€action€was€rendered€on€his€assault€charge,€consistent€with€the€policy€described€byÐ k» ÐSprecher.€€The€Board€granted€Sorrellsðð€request,€stating€that€ð ðthe€Correction€Center€has€consistentlyÐ T¤ Ðfollowed€their€rules€and€regulations€concerning€an€officer€being€arrested€and€charged€with€assault.€Ð =  ÐIt€is€also€the€opinion€of€the€Board€that€if€the€Petitioner€is€acquitted€and€all€charges€pending€againstÐ & v Ðhim€are€dismissed,€the€Petitioner€will€return€to€his€position€and€receive€full€backpay€and€benefits.ððÐ  _ ÐÌà  àThe€stipulated€exhibits€included€several€other€recent€Merit€Board€decisions.€€Some€of€theÐ á 1  Ðdecisions€demonstrated€the€Boardððs€policy€of€reinstating€an€officer€when€the€officerððs€criminalÐ Ê   Ðcharges€are€dismissed,€while€others€showed€that€the€Board€considered€the€employeeððs€good€workÐ ³  Ðperformance€as€a€mitigating€factor€weighing€in€favor€of€granting€the€relief€requested€by€theÐ œì  Ðemployee.Ð …Õ  ÐÌà  àSeveral€witnesses€testified€at€trial.€€Love€submitted€the€testimony€of€Danny€Kail€(ð ðKailðð),€Ð W§  Ðthe€Countyððs€deputy€administrator€for€human€resources€and€the€County€employee€overseeingÐ @ Ðemployee€labor€relations€at€the€time€Loveððs€termination€was€under€consideration.€€Kail€receivedÐ )y ÐAlexanderððs€belated€request€for€arbitration€of€Loveððs€termination€and€denied€it€as€untimely.€€KailÐ b Ðtestified€that€the€County€followed€a€practice€of€suspending€an€officer€without€pay€if€he€was€arrestedÐ ûK Ðfor€a€crime,€and€that€the€suspension€would€remain€in€effect€until€the€criminal€charges€were€resolved.€Ð ä4 ÐIf€the€charges€were€dismissed€or€dropped,€Kail€stated,€the€employee€was€ordinarily€summoned€backÐ Í Ðto€work.€Ð ¶ ÐÌà  àKail€was€instrumental€in€drafting€the€MOU€between€the€County€and€the€Union,€and€indeedÐ ˆØ Ðhe€ð ðwrote€most€of€it.ðð€€Under€the€process€outlined€in€the€MOU,€Kail€testified,€once€an€employeeððsÐ qÁ Ðgrievance€is€denied€in€Step€III€of€the€grievance€process,€the€union€can€request€arbitration€on€behalfÐ Zª Ðof€the€employee,€or€the€employee€can€appeal€to€the€Merit€Board.€€If€the€employee€asks€the€UnionÐ C“ Ðto€arbitrate,€the€Union€has€a€fiduciary€duty€to€decide€whether€the€case€has€sufficient€merit€to€moveÐ ,| Ðforward.€€If€the€Union€determines€that€the€case€has€merit,€it€submits€a€request€and€the€case€thenÐ e Ðproceeds€to€arbitration.€€Kail€testified€that€the€arbitratorððs€decision€is€not€binding€on€the€County;Ð þN Ðrather,€it€is€a€recommendation€to€the€County€Mayor,€who€can€accept€or€reject€that€recommendation.Ð ç 7 ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€also€heard€testimony€from€Warren€Cole€(ð ðColeðð),€a€correctionalò òó ó€officer€at€theÐ ¹" ! ÐPenal€Farm€and€secretary€of€the€Union€at€the€time€of€Loveððs€termination.€€Similar€to€Kail,€ColeÐ ¢#ò" Ðtestified€that€normally,€when€an€officer€is€arrested€and€charged€with€a€criminal€offense,€he€isÐ ‹$Û# Ðsuspended€before€the€outcome€of€any€court€action€on€the€criminal€charges.€€In€Loveððs€case,€ColeÐ t%Ä $ Ðtestified,€he€and€Claude€Elliott€represented€Love€at€the€Step€III€grievance€hearing.€€When€theÐ ]&­!% Ðgrievance€was€denied,€Cole€conceded,€it€was€the€Unionððs€responsibility€to€request€arbitration.€€OnceÐ F'–"& Ðarbitration€is€requested,€Cole€explained,€a€grievance€committee€meets€to€determine€whether€ð ðit€wasÐ /(#' Ða€good€and€true€grievance,ðð€and€then€votes€to€determine€whether€the€case€would€be€sent€toÐ )h$( Ðarbitration.€€Cole€acknowledged€that€it€was€Alexanderððs€responsibility€to€request€arbitration€onÐ *Q%) ÐLoveððs€behalf,€and€he€recalled€that€Alexander€told€Love€that€Alexander€had€ð ðit€covered.€€DonððtÐ ê*:&* Ðworry€about€it.ðð€€Despite€Alexanderððs€assurances€to€Love,€Cole€testified,€the€request€for€arbitrationÐ Ó+#'+ Ðof€Loveððs€termination€was€not€processed.€€Cole€said€that€Love€ð ðwas€a€very€dependable€officer€asÐ ° Ðwell€as€being€the€chief€steward.€€He€led€by€example.€€I€canððt€recall€him€being€late€for€work€any.€€IÐ ™é Ðdonððt€have€any€knowledge€of€any€complaints€from€members€of€management€concerning€Mr.€LoveÐ ‚Ò Ðabout€his€work€ethics.ððÐ k» ÐÌà  àAnother€correctional€officer€at€the€Penal€Farm,€Lillie€Wilson€(ð ðWilsonðð),€testified€at€trial.€Ð =  ÐWilson€was€a€Union€steward€at€the€time€of€the€events€in€question,€and€she€explained€that€a€stewardÐ & v Ðwas€a€Union€member€who€listened€to€complaints€of€employees€and€helped€them€file€grievances.ò òó óÐ  _ ÐWilson€testified€that,€at€the€time€of€Loveððs€termination,€he€was€a€chief€steward€for€the€Union.€€SoÐ ø H Ðthat€Love€would€not€have€to€file€his€own€grievance,€Ô#†Xr†XX X‘Íi,#ÔÔ‡ X‘ÍXXXr†ÔWilson€filed€the€Step€III€grievance€on€LoveððsÐ á 1  Ðbehalf,€but€was€not€involved€with€his€case€after€that€point.€€Wilson€observed€that€Loveððs€jobÐ Ê   Ðperformance€seemed€to€be€good.€€Ð ³  ÐÌà  àLove€testified€on€his€own€behalf.€€Love€noted€at€the€outset€of€his€testimony€that€his€jobÐ …Õ  Ðperformance€evaluations€had€always€been€positive,€as€reflected€in€numerous€job€performanceÐ n¾  Ðevaluations€included€in€the€stipulated€exhibits.€€Love€also€described€the€events€surrounding€his€arrestÐ W§  Ðon€June€5,€1998,€and€explained€that€the€criminal€charges€against€him€were€dismissed€and€his€recordÐ @ Ðwas€expunged.€€He€claimed€that€very€few€officers€are€suspended€without€pay€when€they€are€chargedÐ )y Ðwith€a€crime€but€have€not€yet€been€convicted.Ð b ÐÌà  àLove€testified€that€he€received€a€copy€of€the€August€5,€1998€letter€denying€his€Step€IIIÐ ä4 Ðgrievance€on€August€11,€1998,€and€that€he€visited€Alexander€the€following€day.€€At€that€meeting,Ð Í ÐLove€said,€he€told€Alexander€that€he€wanted€to€go€to€arbitration.€€Love€testified€that€AlexanderÐ ¶ Ðassured€him€that€he€would€ð ðtake€care€of€it.ðð€€Love€said€that,€after€that,€he€called€Alexanderððs€officeÐ Ÿï Ðperiodically€to€make€sure€the€paperwork€was€in€process.€€Love€later€learned€that€the€request€forÐ ˆØ Ðarbitration€of€the€termination€of€his€employment€was€not€timely€filed.€€Love€asserted€that,€had€heÐ qÁ Ðbeen€given€the€opportunity€to€arbitrate,€he€believed€that€he€would€have€been€reinstated€and€madeÐ Zª Ðwhole€for€all€of€his€lost€work€time.€€Love€testified€that€the€ordeal€had€caused€him€stress,€problemsÐ C“ Ðsleeping,€and€nervousness,€and€claimed€that€it€also€caused€financial€problems€and€problems€in€hisÐ ,| Ðmarriage.Ð e ÐÌà  àAlexander€testified€at€trial,€and,€in€addition,€portions€of€his€prior€deposition€testimony€wereÐ ç 7 Ðread€into€the€record.€€In€his€deposition,€Alexander€gave€no€justification€for€€the€Unionððs€failure€toÐ Ð!   Ðfile€a€request€for€arbitration€on€Loveððs€behalf.€€He€stated:€€€€Ð ¹" ! ÐÌà8  à[Question]:€[S]ince€the€union€was€aware€of€the€[August€5,€1998€letter€denying€theÐ ‹$Û# ÐStep€III€grievance],€[shouldnððt]€the€union€have€timely€filed€the€arbitration€or€civilÐ t%Ä $ Ðservice€review€petition?Ð]&­!%Ð Ð  Ðà8  à[Alexander]:€€I€would€agree€with€that,€yes.ÐF'–"&Ð Ð  Ðà8  à[Question]:€Do€you€know€why€that€did€not€happen?Ð/(#'Ð Ð  Ðà8  à[Alexander]:€No,€I€donððt.€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð)h$(Ð Ð  ÐÌAt€trial,€Alexander€admitted€that€Love€asked€him€to€file€a€request€for€arbitration,€but€suggested€thatÐ ê*:&* Ðby€the€time€Love€approached€him€to€ask€that€the€Union€file€a€request€for€arbitration,€such€a€requestÐ Ó+#'+ Ðwas€already€untimely€and€they€both€knew€it.€€Alexander€said€that€he€nevertheless€ð ðobligedðð€LoveÐ ° Ðby€sending€the€belated€letter.€€Alexander€confirmed€that,€when€a€member€wants€arbitration,€theÐ ™é ÐUnionððs€grievance€committee€determines€whether€the€case€is€sufficiently€meritorious€for€the€UnionÐ ‚Ò Ðto€request€arbitration,€and€if€it€is€meritorious,€the€Union€sends€a€letter€requesting€arbitration.€Ð k» Ѐ€Ð T¤ Ðà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€trial,€the€trial€court€issued€a€ruling€from€the€bench.€€Initially,€the€trialÐ =  Ðcourt€rejected€Loveððs€breach€of€contract€claim,€stating€that€there€was€no€ð ðbreach€of€contract€causeÐ & v Ðof€action€stated€as€such.ðð€€With€respect€to€the€negligence€claim,€the€trial€court€found€that€Love€in€factÐ  _ Ðmet€with€Alexander€on€August€12,€1998,€as€Love€had€maintained,€and€that€Alexander€assured€LoveÐ ø H Ðthat€ð ðhe€would€take€care€of€it€for€him.ðð€€Thereafter,€the€trial€court€concluded,€the€Union€negligentlyÐ á 1  Ðfailed€to€timely€seek€arbitration€on€Loveððs€behalf.€€However,€the€trial€court€found€that€Love€had€notÐ Ê   Ðshown€that€the€defendantsðð€negligence€caused€any€damage€to€him,€because€the€proof€did€not€showÐ ³  Ðthat,€had€Love€gone€through€the€arbitration€process,€the€arbitration€would€have€resulted€in€a€rulingÐ œì  Ðfavorable€to€Love.€€The€trial€court€analyzed€it€in€a€manner€akin€to€a€legal€malpractice€claim:Ð …Õ  ÐÌà8  à[I]tððs€.€.€.€two€cases,€a€case€within€a€case.€.€.€.€€ÐW§ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à.€.€.€[The€defendants]€did€have€a€duty€.€.€.€to€take€steps€that€were€normalÐ @ Ðaccording€to€all€of€the€testimony€to€protect€[Loveððs]€rights€in€connection€with€theÐ )y Ðarbitration.€.€.€.€The€proper€steps€were€not€taken€to€protect€Mr.€Love€in€connectionÐ b Ðwith€the€arbitration.€.€.€.ÐûKÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à[The€defendants]€dropped€the€ball.€.€.€.Ðä4Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àThe€second€case€within€a€case€is€the€question€of€what€would€have€happenedÐ Í Ðhad€they€not€dropped€the€ball.€.€.€.€€[Love]€has€to€prove€it€more€probably€than€not€thatÐ ¶ Ðhe€would€have€prevailed€[in€the€arbitration].€€Based€on€all€of€the€proof€that€Iððve€heardÐ Ÿï ÐIððm€not€convinced€that€Mr.€Love€has€carried€that€burden€of€proof€that€he€wouldÐ ˆØ Ðprevail.€€There€would€have€been€numerous€exhibits€presented€as€to€what€happened,Ð qÁ Ðwhat€his€record€was,€all€of€this€was€presented€to€the€various€entities€that€reviewed€hisÐ Zª Ðwork€record€and€so€forth€and€they€came€up€with€termination.ÐC“Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àI€canððt€say€that€[Love]€proved€to€me€that€if€he€went€through€the€process€ofÐ ,| Ðarbitration€.€.€.€that€the€arbitration€would€have€been€in€his€favor€or€that€the€mayorÐ e Ðwould€have€acted€in€a€way€that€was€favorable€to€Mr.€Love.€€€€€ÓÓÐþNÐ Ð  ÐÓBiÓThus,€the€trial€court€held€that€Love€could€not€prove€that€the€defendantsðð€negligence€caused€hisÐ Ð!   Ðdamages.€€On€May€20,€2003,€the€trial€court€entered€a€judgment€in€favor€of€the€defendants,€consistentÐ ¹" ! Ðwith€its€oral€ruling.€€From€that€order,€Love€now€appeals.Ð ¢#ò" Ѐ€Ð ‹$Û# Ðà  àOn€appeal,€Love€argues€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion€Ð t%Ä $ Ðthat€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€show€that€he€would€have€prevailed€had€his€case€been€arbitrated.€Ð ]&­!% ÐLove€points€out€that,€at€the€time€he€was€terminated€and€at€the€time€his€Step€III€grievance€was€denied,Ð F'–"& Ðhe€had€not€yet€been€absolved€of€the€criminal€charges€against€him.€€By€the€time€his€arbitration€wouldÐ /(#' Ðhave€occurred,€Love€argues,€his€criminal€charges€were€dismissed,€his€criminal€record€was€expunged,Ð )h$( Ðand€there€was€no€longer€any€basis€on€which€the€arbitration€panel€could€have€upheld€his€termination.€Ð *Q%) ÐLove€argues€that€the€evidence€at€trial€showed€that€Shelby€County€maintained€a€policy€of€reinstatingÐ ê*:&* Ðan€officer€to€his€original€position€with€full€backpay€and€benefits€if€he€were€suspended€based€onÐ Ó+#'+ Ðcriminal€charges€for€which€the€officer€was€later€acquitted.€€Further,€Love€notes€that€the€evidence€isÐ ° Ðundisputed€that€his€work€record€was€exemplary,€which€would€have€further€improved€the€chance€thatÐ ™é Ðhe€would€have€been€reinstated€in€an€arbitration€proceeding.€€In€addition,€Love€contends€that€the€trialÐ ‚Ò Ðcourt€erred€in€rejecting€his€breach€of€contract€claim.€€Therefore,€Love€argues,€the€trial€courtððsÐ k» Ðdecision€should€be€reversed€and€the€cause€remanded€for€further€proceedings€related€to€damages.Ð T¤ ЀÌà  àIn€response,€the€defendants€argue€that€the€trial€court€should€have€applied€the€standard€usedÐ & v Ðin€federal€cases€involving€the€breach€of€the€duty€of€fair€representation€under€the€National€LaborÐ  _ ÐRelations€Act€(ð ðNLRAðð).€€Under€the€federal€standard,€to€prove€that€a€union€breached€its€duty€of€fairÐ ø H Ðrepresentation€to€a€union€member,€the€plaintiff€must€show€that€the€alleged€breach€was€in€bad€faith,Ð á 1  Ðwas€discriminatory,€or€was€arbitrary.€€ò òòòSee€Vaca€v.€Sipesó óóó,€386€U.S.€171,€177„78€(1967).€€TheÐ Ê   Ðdefendants€concede€that€the€NLRA€is€inapplicable€to€the€instant€case,€since€Love€was€employed€byÐ ´  Ða€governmental€entity.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€They€argue,€however,€that€the€federal€standard€should€be€applied€in€theÐ í  Ðinstant€case,€rather€than€a€simple€negligence€standard,€so€that€a€union€representing€governmentalÐ †Ö  Ðemployees€will€not€be€held€to€a€different€standard€of€liability€as€other€unions€in€an€identical€situation.€Ð o¿  ÐAlternatively,€the€defendants€argue,€the€trial€court€correctly€concluded€that€Love€did€not€prove€thatÐ X¨  Ðhe€would€have€succeeded€in€arbitration.Ð A‘ Ѐ€€€€€Ð *z Ðà  àThe€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€are€reviewed€òòde€novo€óóon€the€record,€presuming€thoseÐ c Ðfindings€to€be€correct€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€ò òòòCross€v.€City€of€Memphisóóó ó,€20Ð üL ÐS.W.3d€642,€645€(Tenn.€2000);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).€€Conclusions€of€law€are€reviewed€òòde€novoóó,Ð æ6 Ðwith€no€such€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòò òThurmon€v.€Sellersó óóó,€62€S.W.3d€145,€151€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð Ï Ð2001).Ð ¹  ÐÌà  àLove€argues€on€appeal€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€rejecting€his€breach€of€contract€claim.€Ð ‹Û ÐLove€claims€that,€when€Alexander€agreed€to€ð ðtake€care€ofðð€appealing€his€termination€at€the€AugustÐ tÄ Ð12,€1998€meeting,€this€created€an€oral€agreement€in€which€Alexander€agreed€to€timely€appeal€hisÐ ]­ Ðtermination.€€Love€does€not€specify€the€terms€of€the€agreement,€nor€does€he€identify€anyÐ F– Ðconsideration€given€or€bargained„for€exchange€between€the€parties.€€Furthermore,€the€evidenceÐ / Ðsubmitted€at€trial€does€not€support€Loveððs€claim€of€the€existence€of€a€contract€between€him€and€theÐ h Ðdefendants.€€Under€these€circumstances,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion€that€Love€did€notÐ  Q Ðestablish€a€breach€of€contract.Ð ê : ÐÔ#†Xr†XX X‘ÍEP#ÔÔ‡ X‘ÍXXXr†ÔÌà  àAs€to€Loveððs€negligence€claim,€the€defendants€argue€that€the€federal€standard,€applicable€toÐ ¼" ! Ðfederal€cases€involving€the€duty€of€fair€representation€under€the€NLRA,€should€be€applied€in€theÐ ¥#õ" Ðinstant€case€to€prevent€disparate€results€between€cases€involving€a€non„governmental€employer€andÐ Ž$Þ# Ða€governmental€employer.€€Whether€the€federal€standard€or€a€simple€negligence€standard€shouldÐ w%Ç $ Ðapply€in€such€cases€brought€against€the€union€by€an€aggrieved€union€member€is€an€issue€of€firstÐ ° Ðimpression€in€Tennessee.€€The€Union€cites€no€other€case€applying€this€standard€in€a€similar€situation.€Ð ™é ÐUnder€the€circumstances,€where€the€NLRA€is€clearly€not€applicable,€we€decline€to€adopt€the€federalÐ ‚Ò Ðstandard.€Therefore,€we€apply€a€negligence€analysis€to€this€claim.Ð k» ÐÌà  àOn€appeal,€the€defendants€do€not€dispute€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€Love€met€withÐ =  ÐAlexander€on€August€12,€1998,€within€the€time€limit€for€filing€a€request€for€arbitration,€thatÐ & v ÐAlexander€assured€Love€that€he€would€ð ðtake€care€of€it,ðð€and€that€the€Union€nevertheless€failed€toÐ  _ Ðsubmit€a€request€Loveððs€behalf€within€the€required€time€period.€€The€trial€court€concluded€that€theÐ ø H ÐUnion€had€a€duty€to€Love€to€protect€Loveððs€rights€with€respect€to€arbitration€of€his€termination,€andÐ á 1  Ðthat€the€Union€ð ðdropped€the€ballðð€in€failing€to€do€so.€€This€element€of€Loveððs€claim€is€not€in€disputeÐ Ê   Ðon€appeal.€€The€focus,€then,€is€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€Love€did€not€carry€his€burden€of€provingÐ ³  Ðthat€ð ðmore€probably€than€not€.€.€.€he€would€have€prevailedðð€had€the€request€for€arbitration€beenÐ œì  Ðtimely€filed.Ð …Õ  ÐÌÔ#†Xr†XX X‘Í|#ÔÔ‡ X‘ÍXXXr†Ôà  àIn€proving€a€negligence€claim,€the€plaintiff€must€establish€both€causation€in€fact€andÐ W§  Ðproximate,€or€legal,€causation€as€necessary€elements€of€his€claim.€€ò òòòSee€Burroughs€v.€Mageeó óóó,€118Ð @ ÐS.W.3d€323,€327„28€(Tenn.€2003).€€ð ðCausation,€or€cause€in€fact,€means€that€the€injury€or€harm€wouldÐ *z Ðnot€have€occurred€ððbut€forðð€the€defendantððs€negligent€conduct.ðð€€ò òòòKilpatrick€v.€Bryantó óóó,€868€S.W.2dÐ c Ð594,€598€(Tenn.€1993).€€Thus,€ð ðcausation€[in€fact]€refers€to€the€cause€and€effect€relationship€betweenÐ ýM Ðthe€tortious€conduct€and€the€injury.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€Once€cause€in€fact€is€established,€the€question€becomesÐ æ6 Ðwhether€the€defendantððs€negligence€was€the€proximate€cause€of€the€plaintiffððs€injuries.€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€Ð Ð  ÐDetermining€proximate€causation€is€a€policy€decision€regarding€whether€to€impose€liability€underÐ º  Ðparticular€circumstances€when€cause€in€fact€has€been€established.€€òòò òWhite€v.€Lawrenceó óóó,€975€S.W.2dÐ £ó Ð525,€529€(Tenn.€1998).ò òòòóóó ó€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€explained€the€difference€between€causeÐ Ý Ðin€fact€and€proximate€cause:Ð vÆ ÐÌà8  àThe€distinction€between€cause€in€fact€and€proximate,€or€legal,€cause€is€not€merely€anÐ H˜ Ðexercise€in€semantics.€€The€terms€are€not€interchangeable.€€Although€both€cause€inÐ 1 Ðfact€and€proximate,€or€legal,€cause€are€elements€of€negligence€that€the€plaintiff€mustÐ j Ðprove,€they€are€very€different€concepts.€€Cause€in€fact€refers€to€the€cause€and€effectÐ  S Ðrelationship€between€the€defendantððs€tortious€conduct€and€the€plaintiffððs€injury€orÐ ì < Ðloss.€€Thus,€cause€in€fact€deals€with€the€ð ðbut€forðð€consequences€of€an€act.€€TheÐ Õ!%  Ðdefendantððs€conduct€is€a€cause€of€the€event€if€the€event€would€not€have€occurred€butÐ ¾"! Ðfor€the€conduct.€€In€contrast,€proximate€cause,€or€legal€cause,€concerns€aÐ §#÷" Ðdetermination€of€whether€legal€liability€should€be€imposed€where€cause€in€fact€hasÐ $à# Ðbeen€established.€€Proximate€or€legal€cause€is€a€policy€decision€made€by€theÐ y%É $ Ðlegislature€or€the€courts€to€deny€liability€for€otherwise€actionable€conduct€based€uponÐ b&²!% Ðconsiderations€of€logic,€common€sense,€policy,€precedent€and€ð ðour€more€or€lessÐ K'›"& Ðinadequately€expressed€ideas€of€what€justice€demands€or€of€what€is€administrativelyÐ 4(„#' Ðpossible€and€convenient.ðð€€(Citations€omitted.)€Ð)m$(Ð Ð  Ѐ€€€à  àÐ *V%) Ðò òòòSnyder€v.€LTG€Lufttechnische€GmbHó óóó,€955€S.W.2d€252,€256€n.6€(Tenn.€1997).€€The€Court€has€alsoÐ ï*?&* Ðestablished€a€three„part€test€for€determining€whether€proximate€cause€exists:Ð Ù+)'+ Їà8  à1.€€The€defendantððs€conduct€must€have€been€a€ð ðsubstantial€factorðð€in€bringing€aboutÐ ° Ðthe€harm€complained€of;à8hÐ Ð àЙéhphp Ðà8  à2.€€There€is€no€rule€or€policy€that€should€relieve€the€wrongdoer€from€liability€becauseÐ ‚Ò Ðof€the€manner€in€which€the€negligence€has€resulted€in€the€harm;€and€Ðk»Ð Ð  Ðà8  à3.€€The€harm€giving€rise€to€the€action€could€have€reasonably€been€foreseen€orÐ T¤ Ðanticipated€by€a€person€of€ordinary€intelligence€and€prudence.€Ð= Ð Ð  ÐÌò òòòSee€McClenahan€v.€Cooleyó óóó,€806€S.W.2d€767,€775€(Tenn.€1991);€òòò òsee€Kilpatrickóó€ó ó,€868€S.W.2d€at€598€Ð  _ Ðn.1òòóó,€òòò òBrownóó€òòv.€Hamilton€Countyó óóó,€126€S.W.3d€43,€50€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2003).€€Thus,€a€defendantððsÐ û K Ðnegligence€is€the€proximate€cause€of€the€plaintiffððs€injury€if€it€was€a€substantial€factor€in€causing€anÐ ç 7  Ðinjury€that€could€have€reasonably€been€foreseen€by€an€ordinary€person.€€The€negligence€need€not€beÐ Ð  Ðthe€òòonly€óócause€of€the€plaintiffððs€injuries;€it€need€only€be€a€substantial€factor.€€ò òòòSee€Roberts€v.Ð ¹  ÐRobertson€County€Bd.€of€Edu.ó óóó,€692€S.W.2d€863,€871€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1985);€òòò òWaller€v.€Skeletonó óóó,Ð £ó  Ð212€S.W.2d€690,€696€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1948).€€Both€causation€in€fact€and€proximate€cause€must€beÐ Ý  Ðproven€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€ò òòòKilpatrickó óóó,€868€S.W.2d€at€598.€€Consequently,€theÐ vÆ  Ðrelevant€inquiry€is€whether€or€not€the€defendantððs€conduct€ð ðmore€likely€than€notðð€was€a€substantialÐ `°  Ðfactor€in€causing€the€plaintiffððs€injuries.€€ò òòòSee€id.ó óóó€at€598„99.€€This€standard€is€also€applied€in€legalÐ I™ Ðmalpractice€cases€which,€like€the€case€at€bar,€require€the€plaintiff€to€prove€ð ða€case€within€a€case.ðð€Ð 3ƒ Ðò òòòSeeóóó óÔ#†Xr†XX X‘Íþƒ#Ô€ò òòòMetcalf€v.€Watersó óóó,€No.€02A01„9510„CV„00236,€1996€WL€622696,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€OctÐ l Ð29,€1996),€ò òòòrevððd€on€other€groundsó óóó,€970€S.W.2d€448€(Tenn.€1998)€(recognizing€that,€in€order€toÐ V Ðprove€causation€in€a€legal€malpractice€claim,€plaintiff€must€show€that€he€more€probably€than€notÐ ð@ Ðwould€have€prevailed€in€his€underlying€case,€essentially€proving€a€ð ðcase€within€a€caseðð);ò òòòóóó ó€ò òòòBruce€v.Ð Ù) ÐOliveó óóó,€No.€03A01„9509„CV„00310,€1996€WL€93580,€at€*3€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Mar.€4,€1996)€(same);Ð Ã Ðòòò òsee€also€Kilpatrickó óóó,€868€S.W.2d€at€602€(holding€that,€in€a€medical€malpractice€case,€a€finding€thatÐ ­ý Ðthe€defendantððs€negligence€ð ð€ððmight€haveðð€ððmay€haveðð€[or]€ððcould€haveðð€ðð€caused€the€injury€is€notÐ —ç Ðenough;€the€plaintiff€must€prove€that€the€negligence€more€probably€than€not€caused€the€injury).ò òòòóóÔ‡ X‘ÍXXXr†Ôó óÐ €Ð ÐÌà  àTherefore,€the€issue€on€appeal€is€whether€the€defendantsðð€negligence€in€failing€to€protectÐ R¢ ÐLoveððs€appeal€ð ðmore€likely€than€notðð€was€a€substantial€factor€in€causing€Loveððs€termination€toÐ ;‹ Ðbecome€permanent.€€Therefore,€as€correctly€stated€by€the€trial€court,€Love€had€the€burden€of€provingÐ $t Ðthat€had€the€defendants€not€been€negligent,€i.e.,€had€they€timely€requested€arbitration,€he€ð ðmoreÐ  ] Ðlikely€than€notðð€would€have€prevailed€in€the€arbitration€and€would€have€been€reinstated€as€aÐ ö F Ðcorrectional€officer.Ð ß!/  ÐÌà  àIn€reaching€the€conclusion€that€Love€did€not€meet€his€burden€of€proof,€the€trial€courtÐ ±#" Ðobserved€that€Loveððs€case€had€been€ð ðpresented€at€various€steps€to€the€county€and€through€theÐ š$ê# Ðprocess,ðð€and€he€had€failed€to€prevail€at€each€of€those€steps.€€The€trial€court€also€found€significantÐ ƒ%Ó $ Ðthat€the€arbitration€process€is€advisory,€rather€than€binding.€€The€trial€court€noted€that€Love€did€notÐ l&¼!% Ðshow€that€the€Mayor€would€have€approved€the€arbitration€result€or€ð ðacted€in€a€way€that€wasÐ U'¥"& Ðfavorable€to€Mr.€Love.ðð€€Based€on€these€facts,€the€trial€court€held€that€Love€did€not€prove€causation.Ð >(Ž#' ЀÌà  àAs€the€trial€court€observed,€by€the€time€Love€received€the€August€5,€1998€letter€denying€hisÐ *`%) Ðgrievance€and€met€with€Alexander€on€August€12,€1998,€he€had€gone€through€the€third€step€of€theÐ ù*I&* ÐCounty€grievance€process,€to€no€avail.€€Shortly€after€that,€however,€on€August€18,€1998,€the€criminalÐ â+2'+ Ðcharges€against€Love€were€dismissed€and€Loveððs€record€was€expunged,€based€on€Loveððs€proof€thatÐ ° Ðthe€marijuana€found€in€his€car€did€not€belong€to€him.€€Once€the€criminal€charges€against€Love€wereÐ ™é Ðdismissed€and€his€record€expunged,€this€changed€the€picture€drastically.€€At€this€point,€no€basisÐ ‚Ò Ðremained€for€Loveððs€employment€to€be€terminated.Ð k» ÐÌà  àAt€the€time€the€criminal€charges€against€Love€were€dismissed,€the€steps€remaining€in€theÐ =  Ðappeal€process€were€for€the€Union€grievance€committee€to€determine€whether€Loveððs€request€forÐ & v Ðarbitration€was€meritorious,€for€Loveððs€case€to€be€arbitrated€and€a€recommendation€by€the€arbitratorÐ  _ Ðsent€to€the€County€Mayor,€and€for€the€County€Mayor€to€determine€whether€Love€should€beÐ ø H Ðreinstated.€€The€evidence€at€trial€indicated€that€the€Unionððs€grievance€committee€is€not€obligated€toÐ á 1  Ðfile€a€request€for€arbitration€if€it€determines€that€the€employeeððs€case€is€not€meritorious.€€However,Ð Ê   Ðsince€the€Union€in€fact€filed€a€request€for€arbitration,€albeit€an€untimely€one,€this€indicates€that€theÐ ³  ÐUnion€grievance€committee€found€Loveððs€case€meritorious.€€If€the€Union€in€fact€requests€arbitration,Ð œì  Ðthe€result€of€the€arbitration€depends€on€the€individual€arbitrator.€€Finally,€if€the€arbitratorÐ …Õ  Ðrecommends€reinstatement€of€the€employee,€his€recommendation€is€advisory€and€the€County€MayorÐ n¾  Ðmay€decide€nevertheless€to€deny€reinstatement.Ð W§  ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€in€this€case€rightly€took€into€account€the€uncertainty€involved€in€arbitrationÐ )y Ðand€the€possibility€that€the€County€Mayor€would€not€follow€an€arbitratorððs€recommendation€ofÐ b Ðreinstatement.€€However,€the€evidence€on€the€Countyððs€practice€of€reinstating€employees€whoseÐ ûK Ðcriminal€charges€are€dismissed,€as€well€as€the€evidence€of€Loveððs€exemplary€work€record,€was€strongÐ ä4 Ðand€unrefuted.€€Danny€Kail,€the€Countyððs€deputy€administrator€for€human€resources€and€its€chiefÐ Í Ðnegotiator€with€the€unions,€testified€that€the€corrections€centerððs€practice,€if€an€employee€wasÐ ¶ Ðsuspended€from€work€because€of€an€arrest,€and€the€criminal€charges€were€later€resolved€in€favor€ofÐ Ÿï Ðthe€employee,€was€that€the€employee€ð ðwould€be€summonsed€back€to€work.ðð€€This€was€corroboratedÐ ˆØ Ðby€the€Civil€Service€Merit€Boardððs€decisions€regarding€correctional€employee€Jeffery€Sorrells,€inÐ qÁ Ðwhich€the€director€of€the€corrections€center€testified€that€if€a€corrections€employee€is€arrested€whileÐ Zª Ðoff€duty€and€the€charges€are€later€dismissed,€the€employee€would€ð ðbe€returned€to€work€with€fullÐ C“ Ðbackpay€and€seniority€rights.ðð€€The€defendants€offered€no€evidence€to€the€contrary.€€Love€alsoÐ ,| Ðsubmitted€evidence€that€he€enjoyed€an€exemplary€work€record€over€the€eight€and€one„half€years€heÐ e Ðserved€as€a€correctional€officer,€and€that€officers€with€such€records€were€given€favorableÐ þN Ðconsideration€in€disputes€over€punishment€for€first„time€criminal€offenses.€€Again,€that€evidence€wasÐ ç 7 Ðunrefuted.Ð Ð!   ÐÌà  àThus,€the€undisputed€evidence€showed€that€Love€had€an€exceptionally€strong€case€forÐ ¢#ò" Ðreinstatement.€€He€was€arrested€off„duty€for€a€non„violent€offense,€possession€of€a€controlledÐ ‹$Û# Ðsubstance;€it€was€his€first€criminal€arrest;€the€charges€were€dismissed€because€the€owner€of€theÐ t%Ä $ Ðcontrolled€substance€admitted€culpability;€Loveððs€record€was€expunged,€and€he€was€a€long„termÐ ]&­!% Ðemployee€with€an€outstanding€record€of€job€performance.€€Apart€from€the€vagaries€inherent€in€theÐ F'–"& Ðdecisions€of€a€human€being€such€as€an€arbitrator€or€a€county€executive,€it€is€hard€to€imagine€howÐ /(#' ÐLove€could€have€presented€a€stronger€case.€€Under€these€circumstances,€we€must€conclude€that€theÐ )h$( Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence€shows€that€if€the€defendants€had€protected€Loveððs€right€to€arbitration,Ð *Q%) Ðâ âLove€more€likely€than€not€would€have€prevailed.€€Therefore,€we€reverse€the€trial€courtððs€conclusionÐ ê*:&* Ðthat€Love€failed€to€prove€that€the€defendantsðð€negligence€caused€his€injuries.€€The€cause€must€beÐ ° Ðremanded€for€the€trial€court€to€determine€the€amount€of€damages€and€any€other€related€issues.Ð ™é Ðâ âÌà  àWe€affirm€in€part€and€reverse€in€part€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€and€remand€for€furtherÐ k» Ðproceedings€not€inconsistent€with€this€Opinion.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€to€be€assessed€equally€to€theÐ T¤ ÐAppellant€R.€L.€Love€and€his€surety,€and€Appellees€American€Federation€of€State,€County€andÐ =  ÐMunicipal€Employees€Local€1733€and€Willie€Joe€Alexander.€€€€Ð & v ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð Ê   Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àHOLLY€M.€KIRBY,€JUDGEÐ ³  ÐÔ#†Xr†XX X‘Í!œ#Ô