the issues before the arbitrator should be framed, whether Plaintiffs conduct constituted a serious act of deception, and whether that phrase was ambiguous. (See Arbitration Hr’g Tr. at 198:5-199:24, ECF NO. 83-2; see also Pl.’s Ex. 42, ECF No, 99-3.) When viewed collectively, the foregoing evidence belies Plaintiffs assertion that his arbitration.proceeding failed to afford him a meaningful opportunity to be heard on the “serious act of deception” charge. Moreover, even if the arbitration proceeding could be viewed as constitutionally deficient, Plaintiff had access to judicial review under state law in the Commonwealth Court, which the record does not indicate he ever pursued. See Pennsylvania State Police v. Pennsylvania State Troopers’ Ass’n, 540 Pa. 66, 656 A.2d 88, 89-90 (1995) (<HOLDING>). The' Third Circuit has advised that, “[i]f
holding that a court reviewing an arbitrators award in an act 111 grievance arbitration involves questions regarding 1 the jurisdiction of the arbitrator 2 the regularity of the proceedings 3 an excess of the arbitrators powers and 4 deprivation of constitutional rights holding that an arbitrators award should have been vacated 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 an award may be in excess of the arbitrators powers if it requires the public employer to perform an act that is prohibited by law or if it does not involve legitimate terms and conditions of employment holding that determination of the parameters and scope of an arbitrators award which involved an analysis of the interplay between various contract provisions was a matter for the arbitrator to decide not the courts