to the statutorily created parameters of review, courts have recognized that ... arbitration decisions are reviewable for possible due process violations,” Goff, 276 F.3d at 997, and violations of “well-defined and dominant public policies.” Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. United Transp. Union, 3 F.3d 255, 258 (8th Cir. 1993). III. Sullivan claims a violation of “industrial due process,” arguing “[t]he Award allows Endeavor to terminate Sullivan without proper notice as to the quality of conduct for which he could be subject to termination.” Although “arbitration decisions are reviewable for possible due process violations,” review is limited to the procedural due process afforded by the arbitration itself, not alleged due process in the underlying action challenged. Goff, 276 F.3d at 997 (<HOLDING>), quoting 45 U.S.C. § 153 First (i), (j)
holding that due process requires that the findings and actions of a disciplinary prison board be supported by some evidence in the record holding due process requires that 1 the board be presented with a full statement of the facts and all supporting data bearing upon the disputes  and 2 the parties may be heard either in person by counsel or by other representatives  and the  board shall give due notice of all hearings to the employee  holding that due process requires that notice be reasonably calculated under all circumstances to provide parties with notice of the pending action holding that a notice recommending termination of an employee to the board without notice to the employee of employees right to attend and dispute the claims violated due process holding that taxpayer could not have presented substantive due process claim to the board of assessment review because of the limited jurisdiction of that board