claim, he did not invoke the statute or the parties’ agreement; instead, he referred in general only to “arbitral principles and reason.” The case law on the jurisdictional aspect of narrow certiorari review provides some guidance. InFOP, Lodge No. 5, the City argued that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to grant out-of-class pay because the union did not properly present such a claim in its demand for arbitration. This Court ultimately held that the claim indeed was not encompassed in the demand for arbitration and that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to permit the union to add the issue on the first day of arbitration hearings over the City’s objection. Accordingly, we concluded, the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to hear the claim. 768 A.2d at 296-99. See also id. at 298 n. 4 (<HOLDING>) siting City of Philadelphia v. City of
recognizing commonwealth court authority supporting proposition that arbitrators exceeded their jurisdiction when they considered issues which were not properly presented in the demand for arbitration holding that appellate court may only review issues actually presented to and considered by the trial court recognizing that proposition holding that although party participated in arbitration even presenting argument on merits it had not waived its objection to arbitrators jurisdiction because it consistently objected to arbitrators jurisdiction throughout proceedings holding that the court rather than arbitrators determines issues of attorney disqualification in arbitration