action. The 1999 Amendments required the District to pay Fairman up to five years of severance pay and benefits. The arbitration award predicated upon these Amendments appears to give Fairman roughly three years of severance pay and benefits. If the District were required to pay this award, the award would stand in clear contravention of the explicit statutory policy against entering into such long-term agreements in the absence of Council approval. In the absence of such approval, the 1999 Amendments violate the public policy, expressly provided for by law, against entering into multi-year contracts without legislative approval. An award based thereon would violate a clear and dominant public policy that would support vacating an arbitrator’s award. See Lopa-ta, supra, 735 A.2d at 938 (<HOLDING>). For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that
holding that the arbitrators decision had res judicata effect even when the arbitrators failed to make detailed supporting findings when the decision firmly stated that it represented a full and final settlement of the matter as a whole holding that an arbitration award based on the conclusion that unappended waiver forms are unenforceable pursuant to public policy is not reviewable by the courts because as stated in schultz it is not based on an allegation that a specific provision in an insurance policy contravenes public policy recognizing that the courts may refuse to enforce an arbitrators decision based on a clear public policy ascertainable by reference to laws holding that the plain meaning of the uim policy language was clear and not contrary to public policy recognizing that prevailing party has remedies available at common law to enforce arbitrators award