The review of grievance arbitration awards in public education constitutes the topic of this second chapter in a book on school law. A discussion of landmark cases outside of education underscores the general principles that have motivated courts to undertake review of arbitration awards. Supreme Court decisions in three cases known as the "Steelworkers Trilogy" suggest that arbitration is an efficient means of making collective bargaining work, but also invite courts to intervene when they feel the arbitrator has made a gross error in construction. Generally, the courts have followed the principle that they should not review the merit of an arbitrator's award but that they can determine whether the arbitrator lacked authority to make a specific award. In the public sector, a court will not enforce an arbitration award if it has found the arbitrator's decision contrary to law or public policy. Many of the principles of grievance arbitration have been transferred from the private to the public sector. As a result, courts exercise judicial restraint in reviewing arbitration awards. On the other hand, the proliferation of statutes on the scope of bargaining in the public sector has increased the likelihood that arbitration awards will be reviewed. (Author/WD)