to hold jurisdictional challenges waived by failure to present the jurisdictional issue to the arbitrators.” Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local Union No. 545 v. Hope Elec. Corp., 380 F.3d 1084 (8th Cir.2004). Apache's cryptic references to its jurisdictional argument in its motion to vacate in district court are more troubling, however. Although Apache did present ’n, Int’l, 343 F.3d 401, 410-11 (5th Cir.2003) ("[I]f the relevant bargaining agreement requires just cause for dismissal, an arbitrator acts beyond his jurisdiction by fashioning an alternate remedy once it has concluded — implicitly or otherwise — that an employee's conduct constitutes just cause for dismissal”). See also Weber Aircraft, Inc. v. Gen. Warehousemen & Helpers Union Local 767, 253 F.3d 821 (5th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). 6 . New York, like most states, is an at-will
holding that arbitrator had authority to choose between suspension and termination where the authority was vested in the company to suspend andor discharge recognizing our authority to order suspension of a judge holding arbitrator exceeded authority where submission limited issue to finding proper cause recognizing authority of legislature to choose officers of municipal corporations holding grant of authority to an agency to adopt rules necessary to carry out this chapter clearly vested in the agency authority to interpret a statute