In all three, the employer challenged the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement rather than the award. In Clinchfield I and Clinchfield II, the employers succeeded in judicially evading adverse awards. The judicial opinions disclose the substitution of judicial interpretation in place of the arbitrator's interpretation. This result is in conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the Steelworkers Trilology that protected labor arbitration awards from expansive judicial review. In Kris-Beth, Inc., the court directed a stay of an arbitration award on the basis of a suit filed by a party extraneous to the collective bargaining agreement. Appeals have been unsuccessful to date, and the arbitration award has been denied enforcement for over a year. These cases demonstrate the perils involved in judicial intervention in the collective bargaining and grievance resolution process. The courts should not destroy the system of autonomous dispute resolution and free enterprise mandated by Congress and established by the parties in collective bargaining. If courts continue to intrude in the arbitration process by excessive review, the process will lose credibility. Management, labor units, employees, and the public will be the victims. A total of 54 footnotes are provided.