In Paperworkers v. Misco, Inc. (1987) 484 U.S. 29, an arbitrator had found no just cause for an employee's termination and thus ordered his reinstatement. In reviewing that decision, the United States Supreme Court held that the arbitrator was entitled to refuse to consider evidence unknown to the employer at the time the employee was terminated because the arbitrator's procedural decision was consistent with the terms of the parties' collective bargaining agreement. (Misco, supra, 484 U.S. at pp. 38-39.) In doing so, and thereby reversing a Court of Appeals decision, the court explained: "Nor was it open to the Court of Appeals to refuse to enforce the award because the arbitrator, in deciding whether there was just cause to discharge, refused to consider evidence unknown to the Company at the time Cooper was fired. The parties bargained for arbitration to settle disputes and were free to set the procedural rules for arbitrators to follow if they chose." (Misco, supra, 484 U.S. at pp. 39-40.) In Misco, the arbitrator was called upon to address an issue nearly identical to the one addressed by the arbitrator in this case: "whether the employer had 'just cause to discharge the Grievant under Rule II.1' and, 'if not, what if any should be the remedy.' " (Misco, supra, 484 U.S. at pp. 33-34.) There, following arbitration, the arbitrator found no just cause for termination and thus ordered the reinstatement of an employee who had been hired to operate hazardous machinery for the company, but had been terminated following his arrest at home for marijuana possession. (Ibid.) The arbitrator decided the evidence was insufficient to prove the employee had possessed or used marijuana on company property after refusing to consider evidence -- unavailable to the company when it terminated the employee -- that police had found the employee on company property leaving the backseat of a car that smelled of marijuana smoke and had a burning marijuana cigarette in the front seat ashtray. (Ibid.) After the company filed suit, the District Court vacated the award on the ground that it was contrary to public policy because it violated "general safety concerns that arise from the operation of dangerous machinery while under the influence of drugs" and criminal drug possession laws. The Court of Appeals affirmed. (Id. at p. 35.)