language, including such words as “just cause.” They have “bargained for” the arbitrator’s construction of their agreement. And the courts will set aside the arbitrator’s interpretation of what their agreement means only in rare instances. Of course, an arbitrator’s award must draw its essence from the contract and cannot simply reflect the arbitrator’s own notions of industrial justice. But as long as [an honest] arbitrator is even arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of his authority, the fact that a court is convinced he committed serious error does not suffice to overturn his decision. 531 U.S. 57, 121 S.Ct. at 467, 148 L.Ed.2d 354 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). In this case, just like in Eastern Associat 11th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); Brown v. Maxxam, Inc., 1991 WL 280659
holding that interests of plaintiffs former employees of defendant company in combating discriminatory policies were coextensive with the interest of all former and present employees subjected to the discriminatory policy holding that former employees subjective belief that he suffered an adverse employment action as a result of discrimination without more is not enough to survive former employers summary judgment motion holding that former employees were not entitled to a rule of 65 steelworker pension because the employees were not laid off as a result of a permanent shutdown where thepurchaser offered employment on the same terms holding that probation department employees are not county employees holding that where an spa does not mention former employees but only current employees and a complaint only alleges that former employees were solicited there is no breach of a nonsolicitation clause