This decision is important to policymakers in the area of employment-related substance abuse and drug testing for several reasons. The decision continues the Court's strong position in favor of arbitration as a means of settling disputes, as well as the position that the arbitrator's award is final and binding on the parties. Further, the Court held that any public policy against the use of illegal drugs relied upon by judges to strike down an arbitrator's decision must be well-defined and dominant based on laws and legal precedents rather than on general considerations of some supposed public interest. Finally, in its decision, the Court criticized the de novo fact-finding of the court of appeal and that court's speculation regarding the future drug-related conduct of the employee. Overall, the Misco decision suggests that an arbitrator's decision to suspend workers rather than discharge them for violation of drug-related work rules will not be struck down by a reviewing court absent fraud, bad faith, or the existence of a clear and well-defined public policy. 27 footnotes.