In Kozura v. Tulpehocken Area School District, 568 Pa. 64, 791 A.2d 1169 (2002), John A. Kozura (Kozura), a math and science teacher at Tulpehocken Area School District (TASD) had been suspended without pay. When TASD terminated Kozura following notice and a hearing, the Tulpehocken Education Association (TEA), Kozura's union, filed a grievance on his behalf and requested reinstatement and an award of back pay and corresponding benefits. The matter proceeded to arbitration. The arbitrator reinstated Kozura based on a determination that there was no just cause for termination. The arbitrator failed to award Kozura back pay and benefits because the arbitrator concluded that Kozura's classroom conduct warranted strong discipline in the form of a suspension without pay. Kozura requested that the TEA appeal from the arbitration award. The TEA denied the request and initially advised Kozura that he could file an appeal himself or through counsel. The TEA subsequently informed Kozura that it made a mistake and that only TEA could appeal. Kozura petitioned for review of the arbitration award in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County. The TASD moved to quash the appeal on the basis that Kozura lacked standing to challenge the award as he was not a party to the arbitration proceedings. The Court of Common Pleas of Berks County granted the motion to quash because the collective bargaining agreement between the TEA and TASD vested in the TEA the exclusive right to pursue arbitration. Kozura, 568 Pa. at 66-68, 791 A.2d at 1170-1171. Kozura appealed to this Court which affirmed even though it determined that the collective bargaining agreement did not vest in the TEA an exclusive right to pursue arbitration. The Court noted that the settlement mechanism set up by the grievance procedure would be jeopardized if individual employees were allowed to circumvent the union's dispute resolution procedure. Kozura v. Tulpehocken School District, 765 A.2d 424 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000). Our Pennsylvania Supreme Court allowed appeal to address the issue of whether an individual employee can appeal a grievance arbitration award. Our Pennsylvania Supreme Court reviewed the collective bargaining agreement between the TEA and the TASD and determined that Kozura could appeal the arbitration award in his own capacity. The Supreme Court reversed this Court: Provided that the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement do not violate or conflict with a statute or home rule charter . . . the rights and remedies delineated by the parties to a specific agreement, including those pertaining to the capacity vel non of an individual employee to appeal must be respected. Here, Kozura contends that the collective bargaining agreement between the District and the Association is unusual in that it specifically authorizes the individual employee to pursue grievances in his own right, to refer unresolved grievances to arbitration, and, as a necessary consequence of those authorizations, to appeal from an adverse award. After reviewing the collective bargaining agreement, our Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined Thus, Kozura is correct that, under this particular agreement, it is the employee, not the Association TEA, who initiates each step of the grievance procedure, including referral to arbitration. Moreover, in light of the contractual language that affords the Association TEA representative status solely at the employee's behest, we can discern no basis of record for depriving Kozura of his ability to reject union representation when faced with an adverse arbitration that the Association TEA had no intention of appealing. Kozura, 568 Pa. at 71-74, 791 A.2d at 1174-1175.