An employee was terminated for making angry accusations about a manager. His union intervened, and the employer agreed to reinstate the employee subject to his signing a "last-chance" agreement. The agreement, which he signed, specified that the employee would be fired for any similar conduct in the future and that the union "waive[d] its right to grieve such future incident." A couple of years later, in front of customers, the employee got into a loud argument with a man- ager, who he accused of being racist. The employee was terminated. The union again inter- vened. When the case went to arbitration, the arbitrator determined that the employee's behav- ior might be indicative of underlying psychologi- cal problems. Rather than uphold the termination, the arbitrator ordered that the employee undergo psychological treatment and evaluation at the union's expense. If after nine months of treatment the employee was certified as being fit to work, he would be reinstated (without back pay). The employer went to court to have the arbitrator's decision overturned. What should the court de- cide? Why? (Hay Adams Hotel v. Hotel & Res- taurant Employees, Local 25, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34129 (D.D.C.))