### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE Se pte m be r 15, 200 5 S es sio n LAWRE NCE COUNTY EDUCATI ON ASSOCI ATI ON, ET AL 

### . v. THE LAWRENCE CO UNTY BOARD OF EDUCATI ON, ET AL 

### .

Appeal f romthe Chancer y Court for Law renceCounty No. 11114-02 Rober t L. Jones, Chancellor

No. M2004- 02224-COA-R 3-CV - F iled Novem ber 28, 2005

Ba sketball coa ch and e mploy ee a ssociation appeal trial court’s r efusa l to order coac h reinstated a s a method t o en force ar bitration decision under Master Contra ct betwe en school boa rd and a sso c iatio n. We a ff

irm. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Chancer y Court Aff irm ed
P ATR I C I A J. C O T T RE LL , J ., delivere d the opi nion of the court, in which W I L L I AM B. C A IN and F R ANK G. C L EME NT , J R ., J J ., joined.
Richard L . Colbert, J . Christopher Ander son, Nashville, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellants, L awr ence CountyEducation Association and J erry Taylor. Paul B. Plant, J . Christopher Will iams, L awr ence burg , Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellees, the L awr ence Cou nty B oa rdof Ed uc a tio n andL arry

Mo rr ow , D ir e c tor

of L a wr e nc e Cou nty

Sc ho ols

. OP IN ION
T h e f ac t s o f t h i s m at t erar e n o ti n d i s p u t e. J erry T ay l o r i s a t en u re dt ea ch eratL o re t t o Hi gh School (“L oretto”) employ ed by the L awr enceCounty

Boa rd of Educ ation (“B oard” ). F or seve ral y ear s, Mr. Taylor also coa ched the g irls’ basketba ll team at L oretto pr o d u cing an outstanding wi nn ing re c or d. Th is a

pp e a l is about hi s coa c hin g app oin tme nt o nly . M r. Tay lor ’s e mpl oyme nt, te nu restatus , andte a c hin g re sp on sib ili tie s a reno t at is su e in this la ws uit

. Du ri ng thesp ri ng of

20 01 , whi le Mr . T a y lor

wa s th e c oa c h, so me of

theplay e rs ’ p are nts approach ed the principal of L oretto and some B oard me mbers to complain about Mr. T ay lor’s behavior . A meeting was he ld in May of 2001 with the play ers, p ar en t s , t he princ ipal, and the Boa rd’s attorney

to discuss the complaints. Mr. Taylor was a war e of the meeting but was not invited to attend. The c omplaints focused on three are as; (1) that Mr. Taylor made ina ppropriate rema

rksT h e M as t er Cont r ac t ma de an e x h i bi t e x t en ds f r om Ju l y 1, 2000 t o J u n e 30, 2003. 1
-2- and used pr ofanity

aro u n d the play ers, ( 2) that Mr. Tay lor’s mistreatment of a play er de nied her

a chanc e at a

scholarship, and (3) on two occa sions Mr. Tay lor made r acia l slurs. Appare ntly , petitions wer e also c irculate d in the community making simil ar alleg ations. After discussing the perc eived problem, L oretto’s princ ipal and the L awr ence County School Direc tor (“D irec tor”) me t with Mr. Taylor in J uly of 2001 to pr esent him with the option to enter into an ag ree ment g overning his future c on du c t a s c oa c h. I n e xch a ng e fo r a g re e ing to co mpl y wi th its te rm s, Mr . Ta y lor c ou ld c on tin ue to coac h g irls’ basketba ll at L oretto. Mr. Tay lor dec lined to enter into this ag ree ment. There afte r, the principal and Direc tor continued to re ceive complaints from the community about Mr. Tay lor. The principal then notified Mr . Taylor that he would not be a ssigne d as the g irls’ basketba ll coach f or the up c omi ng 20 01 -0 2 s c ho ol y e ar. I ns te a d, theprinc ipal app oin te d Ch ri sti e Gre e n a s th e L or e tto g ir ls’ basketba ll coach. Mr. Taylor filed a g rievance obje cting to his removal as c oach unde r the c ollec ti ve bar g aining ag ree ment betwe en t h e B o ar dan dt h e Law re n ce C o u n t y E d u ca t i o n As s o ci at i o n (“Ma ster Contrac t”). 1 Mr. Taylor’s g rievance w as not su cce ssful in the intermediate ste ps so, pursuant to the Master Contract, the matter

was ultimately prese nted to an arbitrator who rende red a decision on J une 17, 20 02 . B e fo rethearb itr a tor , th e Di re c tor ba se d his de c isi on to re mov e Mr . Ta y lor a s th e ba sk e tba ll c o a c hbeca

use Mr. Tay lor g ener ated c ontroversy , used prof anity in the play ers’ prese nce, ma de ra cial slurs in the play ers’ prese nce, and was the subjec t of pare ntal complaints. The ar bitrator made the fo llo wi ng fi nd ing s: 1) theMa ste r C on tr a c t c ov e rs c oa c hin g a ssi g nme nts ; 2) any

eff ort t o re l i eve Mr . Taylor of the c oaching assig nment must complywith the Master Contra ct bec ause the assig nment as t he girls’ ba sketball coa ch constituted a

“ pr of e ssi on a l a dv a nta g e ” a ndthere lin qu ish me nt o f the po sit ionun de r the se circ umstances c onstitut ed “disc ipline”; 3) the Master

Contract re quired an investigation with Mr. Tay lor’s participati o n, inc lus ionof mate ri a l in Mr . Ta y lor ’s pe rs on ne l file fo rm ing the ba sis of a ny a dv e rs e action, and a

written statement of

rea sons for dec isi ons made in the g rieva nce pr oc e ss; 4) the Board f

ailed to comply

with require ments of the Master Contract listed above and the failures to comply

with these procedur al requirements prejudiced Mr. Taylor; and 5) the dec ision to remove Mr. Tay lor as the g irls’ b as ketball coa ch wa s arbitra ry and capricious because either

the proof w as lac king or loss of the coac hing position was disproportionate to the off ense.B o t h t he 2 0 0 2

- 0 3 and 20 0 3

- 0 4 s cho o l y ears were o ver i n Sep t em b er of 20 0 4 when t he t ri al co urt i ss ued it s 2

o rder o n M r. T ayl o r’ s sui t co m p l ai ni ng of act i o ns t aken i n t he 2 0 0 2

- 0 3 s cho o l y ear.

T h e bas i s for t h i s c on cl u s i on w as t h e di r ec t or ’ s t es t i mon y t h at , a l t h ou g h h e fol l owe d t h e ar bi t r at or ’ s de ci s i on 3 by co ns i deri ng M r . T ay l or t o be t he i ncu mb ent co ach and di s r ega r ded t he 20 01 comp l ai nt s , he cons i dere d t hat M s . G r een had i n f act be en t he co ach fo r a y ear and , i n hi s o p i ni o n, Lo ret t o “would have a b et t er f ut ure y ear wi t h her t han ret urni ng to the c o n tro v e rs y su rr o u n d ing J e rr y T a ylo r.” -3- The a rbitrator f irst awar ded Mr. Tay lor the coaching supplement for the 2001-2002 school y ear . Wit h reg ard to the 2002- 2003 school y ear , the ar bitrator’s or der pr ovided that: (1) the D irec tor is to make the g irls’ basketba ll c oach assig nment, (2) the Direc tor is to procee d as thoug h Mr. Taylor is the incumbent coac h for the c oming y ear , and (3) the Dire ctor is to eliminate from c onsideration the re asons g iven for r eassig ning Mr . Taylor in 2001-02. The arbitrator r ecog nized that all parties ag ree d that a coa ching position was not tenured and that formulating a reme dy reg arding the coa ch’s return w as diffic ult given the discretion veste d with the Direc tor in making this d ecision. The arb itr a tor re c og nize d th a t hec ou ld not “ tie the hand s” of theDi re c tor . T he arb itr a tor c on c lud e d h is d ec i s i o n b y

fi n d i n g: It is obvious t hat the most likely decision the [Direc tor] will reach is to assign the g rievant to serve a s basketball coa ch ag ain. I f he doe s not do so, the pr obability that another g rievance will be filed is high, and the B oard c learly understands at this poi nt the amount of time, ene rg y and funds that would be involved. Nonethele ss, the Arbitrato r d o es not believe he has the power to rec ommend to the Boa rd that the Boa rd orde r the g rievant rea ssigne d, without the participation of the [Director] as the primary moving party . The Maste r Contrac t places that responsibilitysquare ly on the [Dir e c tor ]’s sh ou lde rs . The B oard a cce pted an d ag ree d to be bound by the ar bitrator’s de cision on J une 18, 2002. Given this acc eptanc e, the a rbi trator’ s decision is not a subject of this appe al. Ther eaf ter, the Direc tor notified the princ ip al of L oretto that af ter ha ving c omplied with the conditions of the arbitrator’s dec ision, itwas his decision “for t he mos t eff icient operation of L oretto Hig h School,” that Christine Gree n be appointed a s the g irls’ basketba ll coach f or the 2002-03 sc hool y ear . There afte r Mr. Tay lor and the A ssociation sued the B oard and Direc tor claimi ng that the Di re c t o r a c t e di n v i o l a t i o n o f

t h e ar b i tr a t i o n d e c i s i o n w h e n h e ap p o i n t e dM s . G r e e n a s t h e g i r ls’ basketba ll c oach. Essentially , the plaintiffs asked the trial court to order that Mr. T ay lor be re instated as the g irls’ basketba ll coach at L oretta. The pa rties filed c ross-motions for summary judgme nt. The trial c o u rt i ssued its order on Se pte mbe r 3 , 2 00 4. Th e tria l c ou rt a g re e d w ithMr . T a y lor

that th e Di re c tor ’s de c isi on to h ir e Ms. 2 Gr e e n a s th e 20 02 -0 3 g ir ls’ ba sk e tball c oa c h w a s “ a n o bv iou s f a ilu reto f oll ow the le tte r andsp irit of th e arbitration decision.” For that rea son, the trial court awar ded Mr. Tay lor the coa ching 3 supplement for the 2002-03 sea son he would have rec eived as the g irls’ basketba ll coach. T he trial-4-

court de clined to addr ess school y ear s past 2002-03 since it found the arbitrator’s dec ision and the Boa rd’s a doption of it did notextend bey ond the 2002-03 school y ear . The trial c ourt found:
It is clear that the arbitrator and the B oard in a dop t i n g h i s decision we re de ciding issues only for the 2002-03 y ear and that an additional g rievance would be nec essary to preserve any

rig hts bey ond that y ear . For th at reas on , th e tria l c ou rt de c lin e d to or de r that Mr . T a y lor be app oin te d th e g ir ls’ ba sk e tba ll coac h for the the n underw ay 2004-05 school y ear . Mr. Taylor and the A ssociation appealed and arg ue that the tria l court was in err or when it restric ted t he effec t of t he arbitrator’s decision to the 2002-03 school y ear and that the court must enfor ce the arbitrator’s decision by ordering the Boa rd and Dire ctor to re instate Mr. Taylor as the g irls’ basketba ll coach at L oretto.
I. S TA N D A R D O F R EVIEW Ou r r e vie w o f a

tria l c ourt ’s su mma

ry jud g me nt i s de novo with no presumption of corr ectne ss since the trial c ourt’s dec ision is a qu es t i o n of law. Scott v. Ashland Healthcare Ctr., Inc. , 49 S.W .3d 281, 285 (Tenn. 2001) . Summa ry judgme nt should be g rante d only when the mov ing pa

rty de mon str a tes that th e reareno g e nu ineiss ue s o f m a te ri a l f a c t a ndthat heor

sh e is entitled to judgment a s a m at t er o f law. W ebber v . State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company , 4 9 S. W.3 d 2 65 , 2 69 (T e nn . 2 00 1) . We mus t c on si der the e vid e nc e in the lig ht m os t favor able to the non- moving pa rty , and we must resolve all infer ences in the non-moving party ’s favor

. Doe v . HCA Health Serv ices, Inc

. , 46 S.W .3d 191, 196 (Tenn. 2001)

. II. S C HO OL S Y S T E M P ERSON N EL D E CI S I ONS Th e dire ctor of sc hools has the power to employ , transfe r, and discha rg e employ ees of

the sc ho ol s y ste m. T e nn . Co de An n. § 4 9- 2- 30 1( b) (1 )( EE ). Whil e a c e rtif ic a te d e mpl oy e e may

g a in tenure as a te ache r, he or

she cannot be come tenur ed in an a dminist rative or supervisory

position. Tenn. Code Ann. § 49- 5-501(11) (A). Pullum v. Smallridge , 652 S.W .2d 338, 34 0 (T enn. 1983). Consequently , “[r]elieving a teac her-coac h of his coac hing duties only ” is a transfer within the s y s te m g o v e r n e d b y T e n n . Co d e A n n . § 49-5-510. W hite v. Bank

s , 614 S.W .2d 331, 334 (Tenn. 19 81 ). Te nn . Cod e An n. § 49 -5 -5 10 c le arl y pla c e s the statut ory re sp on sib ili ty

to m ake tr a ns fe rs wi th thedir e c tor s o f s c ho ols : The dire ctor of sc hools, when nec essary to the eff

icient oper atio n o f t h e school sy ste m, m a y

tr a ns fe r a te a c he r f ro m on e loc a tio n to a no the r w ith in the sc ho ol s y ste m, or fr om one type of w ork to another for which the teac her is qualifie d and license d: provided, that transfer s shall be ac ted upon in acc ordanc e with boar d policy and any loc a lly ne g oti a te d a g re e me nt. The statute authorizes the director to makesuch tran s f e r s , in c luding relieving a tea cher -coa ch of his or her

coac hing duties, f

or the e fficie nt op eration of the school sy stem, which is the re asonT hi s i s cl earl y no t the st and ard ap p l i ed by t he arbit rat o r, who f o und t hat a de ci si o n i s arbit rary and cap ri ci o us 4 if “th e d e c isio n w o u ld s e e m d istinc tly su rp risin g to a re a so n a b le p e rs o n , i n the a b se n c e o f sub sta n tial ju stif ic a tio n .” W h e the r o r n o t t h e a rb itra to r’s d e c isio n is co rr e c t o r b a se d o n a p p lica b le leg a l p rin c ip le s is no t b e fo re u s in th is a p p e a l.

T enn . Co de Ann. § 49

- 5- 61 1(a) p ro vi des t hat t he bo ar d of educ at i on an d t he r ecogn i zed prof es s i onal 5

e m p lo ye e s’ o rg a n iz a tio n sh a ll n e g o tiate in g o o d faith th e fo llo w ing c o n d iti o n s o f em p lo ym e n t: (1 ) sa la rie s o r w a g e s; (2) gri evance p roce d ures ; (3) i nsur ance; (4) f ri nge b enef

i t s; (5) wo rki ng co nd i t i o ns; (6) l eave; (7) s t ud ent dis ci p l i ne p ro c e d u re s; a n d (8 ) p a yro ll d e d u c tio n s.

“ T hos e r i gh t s an d re s po ns i bi l i t i es of boards of

educ at i on, s uper i nt enden t s an d p r ofes s i onal empl oy ees as 6

co nt ai ned i n t hi s t i t l e are not st at ut o ri l y m o d i f i ed or repe al ed by t hi s p art

. ” T enn. C o d e A nn. § 4 9

- 5

- 6 0 4 (a).

-5- g iven for the direc tor’s dec ision not t o rea ppo i n t M r. T ay lor coa ch for the 2002-03 school y ear . J udicial re view of suc h transfe rs have historically been limited to determinations of whether the action was a

rbitrary and ca pricious or motivated by

political or other imprope r motives. Pullum , 652 S.W. 2da t 34 0- 41 ; McKenna v . Sumner County Board of Education , 574 S.W .2d 527, 534 (Tenn. 1978). Courts pr esume the a ctions of a boa rd or a direc tor “a

re not a rbitrary or ca pricious, but are rea sonable and fair unle ss there is cle ar e vidence to the contra ry .” Mi tc he ll v . G ar re tt , 510 S.W .2d 894, 898 (Tenn. 1974)

. 4 Both the pr ovision on the director’ s authority to tran s f e r employ ees and the transf

er pr ovision app lic ableto t e a c he rs c on ta in l a ng ua g e that r e qu ir e s th a t su c h tr a ns f er s be c on sis te nt w itha ny

loc a lly neg otiated ag ree ment

. Th e loc a lly ne g oti a te d a g re e me nts re fe rr e d to in these statute s a retho se adopted pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-601 et. seq. , the Education Professional Neg otiations Act (“ Neg otiations Act”). The Act authorizes rec og nition of a profe ssional employ ees’ org anization a s th e e xclu siv e re pr e se ntativ e of a ll p ro fe ssi on a l e mpl oy e e s o f a bo ardof e du c a tio n f

or thepu rp os e of neg otia t ing w ith the board; neg otiation on specified c onditions of employ ment; and the prepa ration and e x ecution of a

memorandum of unde rstanding ref lecting ag ree ments rea ched in the neg otiation. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 49-5-605, -606, - 611, and -612. TheMaster Contra ct that was the su bje c t of thearb itr a tio n h e re in i s su c h a loc a lly ne g oti a te d a g re e me nt.
I n the Neg otiations Ac t, the Gene ral Asse mbly chose to limit the conditions of employ ment subject t o require d neg otiation, Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-611( a), to limi t the scope of any resulting 5 a g re e me nt, Te nn . Co de An n. § 4 9-5- 61 2( a ), a nd to s pe c if ic a lly re ta in the a ssi g nme nt o f d uti e s to local school sy stem officia ls established elsewhe re. Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-604( a). Be cause of 6 these and other provisions and authority , this court has pre viouslydeterm i n ed that any part, or int e rp re tati on , of an a g re e me nt t hat pu rp orte d to re mov e auth ority fr om the dir e c tor

of sc ho ols to make e mploy ee a ssignme n t s and transfer s was bey ond the leg ally permissible scope of

such ag ree ments. Marion County Board of Education v. Marion C ounty Education Association , 86 S.W .3d 202, 214 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). A ny ag ree ment which “e nvisions s u b s t i t u t ion of the judgme nt of an a

rbitrator f

or discre tio n of the dire ctor of sc hools” reg arding transfe rs is not authorized by

law. Id

.Simil arl y , t he t ri al co urt s t at ed t hat i t need not d eci d e whet her t he arbit rat o r was co rr ect in co ncl ud i ng t hat M r. 7 T ay l or’ s coach i ng as s i gn ment was cove r ed by t he M as t er Co nt r act or t hat M r . T ay l or h ad a ri gh t t o f i l e a gr i eva nce as t o hi s rem o val

. A s t he t ri al c o u rt sa id , th e B o ard ac cep t ed and agreed t o be bo und by t he arbit rat o r’ s d eci si o n. T he B o ard , ho w ev er, d o es no t ha ve st atuto ry autho rit y t o t ran sf er e m p l o yee s.
O n ap p eal , t he B o ard and D i rect o r do not chal l enge t he t ri al co urt ’ s f i nd i ng o r rem ed y a s t o thi s i ss ue. T he 8 tria l co u rt fo u n d th a t “e v e n if the M a ste r C o n tra c t d id no t o the rw ise c o n tro l t h is situa tio n , t h e b o a rd m a d e it a p p lica b le thr o u g h the a rb itra to r’s d e c isio n fo r the a ssig n m e n t o f th e g irls’ h e a d b a sk e tb a ll c o a c h fo r the 2 0 0 2 /2 0 0 3 s c h o o l yea r.” W e n ot e t hi s cour t ha s ques t i oned whe t her a l ocal board of educ ati o n, t hr ough a n egot i at ed ag r eement , ca n pl ace lim itatio n s o n a no n -d e le g a b le d u ty as sig n e d b y s ta tu te to the d ire c to r o f sch o o ls. See M ar i on Count y Boar d of Educat i on , 86 S. W

. 3d a t 211- 13. -6- III . A N A L Y SIS The c orre ctness or e nforc eability of the a rbitrator’ s decisi o n i s not beforeus since it was acc epted and ag ree d to by the B oard. As the t rial court clearly and cor rec tly framed the issue, the 7 question is whether the arbitrator’s dec i s i o n placing signific ant re strictions on the Direc tor’s discretion survived the 2002-03 school y ear . After deciding that it did not ex tend bey ond 2002-03, the trial court found the Dire ctor failed to comply with the arbitrator’s dec ision in 2002-03 school y e ar anda wa

rd e d M r. Tay lor

mon e y dama g e s. 8 We ag reewith the trial court that the arbitrator’s decision by its e x press terms did not ex tend be y on d th e 20 02 -0 3 s c ho ol y e ar. Th e la ng ua g e qu ote d ea rl ie r fr om the arb itr a tor ’s de c isi on c le arl y indicated that its rea ch extended only to the 2002-03 school y ear and, eve n then, it was expected that Mr. Taylor would file anothe r g rievance if he was dissatisfied. I n addition, the arbitrator’s dec ision expressly place d limit ations on the Direc tor “in dec iding whether to a ssign the g rievant to be head ba sk e tball c oa c h f

or the c omi ng y e ar [2 00 2- 03 ].” I f M r. Tay lor ob je c te d to theDi re c tor ’s failu reto appoint him as the coa ch for s u b sequent y ear s, then he should be e x pecte d to follow whateve r g rievance pr ocedur e wa s in place a ffe cting that p o s i t ion at that time. There fore , the trial court corr ectly declined to or der that Mr. Taylor be named as c oach.
Th e tria l cou rt c on c lud e d that Mr. Tay lor a nd theAs so c iatio n h a d n ot e sta bli sh e d any

ri g hts of Mr. Tay lor with reg ard to a coac hing a ssignme n t for any y ear past 2002-03. We ag ree . Con se qu e ntl y , the B oa

rd a nd Mr

. Mo rr ow , the Di re c tor , we re e nti tle d to su mma ryju dgme nt. Be causehe had no c laim bey ond that cre ated, if at all, by the B oard’s approva l of the ar bitration decision, Mr. Tay lor was not enti t l ed to any additional relief

, be it reinstateme nt or additional dama g e s f

or thepay dif fe re nti a l.
Even if the a

rbitrator’ s decision ex tended bey ond the 2002-03 school y ear , the trial court’s decision would neve rtheless still be corr ect a s to reinstatement. The arbitrator clearly understood tha t a n ar b it r a to r w a s p o w e r le s s to ma k e ap p o in tm e n t d e c is io n s . Su c h au th o r ity r e s ts with the direc tor of schools and can n ot be deleg ated throug h an ag ree ment to an ar bitrator. “It is clear . . . that the leg islature did not inte n d b y ad o p t ion of the Ne g otiations Act to alter the a ssignment of duties made e lsewher e in statutes per taining to local adm i n i s t ra t i on of schools.” Ma rio n Co un ty Board of Education , 86 S.W .3d at 208.-7-

Since the law doe s n o t provide an a rbitrator w ith authority

to select c oache s under a c oll e c tiv e a g re e me nt, on e may no t a vo id thi s lim itatio n of auth ority by se e kin g to a c hie ve thesa me re su lt thr ou g h e nf

or c e me nt o f an a

rb itr a tor ’s decision . In o the r w or ds , th e c ou rt s, inc lud ing thi s Cou rt , w ill no t us ur

p th e dis c re tio n o f the dir e cto r of sc ho ols in s e le c tin g c oa c he s u nd e r the g uis e of e nf or c ing a Ma ste r C on tr a c t.
F or the se re a so ns , th e jud g me nt o f the tria l c ou rt is a ff irme d a nd c os ts are a sse sse d a g a ins t the appe llants, L awr enceCountyEducation Association and Mr. Jerry Taylor.

____________________________________ PATRI CI A J . COTTRELL , J UDGE