A public employer appealed from two Chancery Division orders denying its request to restrain a grievance arbitration filed by the union. The issue before the court was whether a union grievance based on language from an expired collective negotiations agreement is arbitrable when a successor collective negotiations agreement clearly and unambiguously addresses the disputed issue raised in the grievance. The court concluded that the language contained in the successor collective agreement superseded the language in the expired agreement. The language in the successor agreement limited compensation for work performed during a weather-related State of Emergency declared by the Governor, contrary to the union's interpretation the language applied to COVID-19. Since the grievance was not within the scope of the successor agreement implemented after impasse, it was not arbitrable. The court reversed the orders requiring grievance arbitration.