dissenting.
The majority has penned a powerful statement of the public policy against sexual harassment. I agree with the majority’s vigorous condemnation of behavior of the sort that allegedly occurred at the Stauf-fer’s store in Lititz on November 12, 1989, and I applaud the court’s recognition of the importance of vindicating the rights of women in the workplace. I respectfully submit, however, that in its zeal to advance that public policy, the majority has committed two fundamental errors that seriously undermine its position. First, the majority has given short shrift to the industrial due process rights of Samuel Leonard. In my view, Stroehmann’s egregious failure to provide Leonard with the procedural protections guaranteed by the collective bargaining agreement justifies his reinstatement.
Second, I believe that the majority mis-characterizes the basis for the arbitrator’s decision to reinstate Leonard and hence finds violations of public policy and arbitrator bias where neither exists. As I read the arbitrator’s opinion, he apparently believed that Leonard was telling the truth, was outraged by Stroehmann’s disregard for procedures that it was obligated to respect under its collective bargaining agreement, and found insufficient evidence that any sexual harassment had in fact occurred. The arbitrator consequently ruled that Stroehmann had failed to carry its burden of demonstrating just cause for discharge and ordered that Leonard be reinstated. This run of the mill arbitration award was not only perfectly appropriate and well within the arbitrator’s discretion, but is subject only to an exceedingly narrow scope of judicial review.1
With all due respect to the majority, I suggest that, even when public policy is involved in a discharge case, arbitrators must begin at the beginning — with fair proceedings and fact findings. Stroehmann did not conduct such fair proceedings and fact findings here and was hence unable to carry its burden of proof to show just cause for discharge at the arbitration hearing. The majority opinion essentially requires Leonard to disprove the allegations against him, a requirement which, in my view, constitutes an unfair shifting of the burden of proof. I would therefore reverse the order of the district court and reinstate the arbitrator’s award.
Further, I disagree with the majority’s affirmance of the remand of this matter to a different arbitrator. The majority concedes that the district court, in justifying its decision to remand to a different arbitrator, took several of the original arbitrator’s comments out of context. Nevertheless, the majority asserts that it cannot disturb the district court’s discretionary choice to remand to a different arbitrator. I believe that the arbitrator’s opinion, no matter how carefully dissected, does not reveal any bias. Additionally, the majority sets another troubling precedent when it relies on the arbitrator’s alternate ground for decision — that is, that no sexual harassment in fact occurred — to demonstrate arbitrator bias. By so deciding, the majority will allow district courts in future arbitration cases to remand to different arbitrators (and implicitly find arbitrator bias) *1448simply because arbitrators have given alternate grounds for their decisions.
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
I.
My disagreement with the majority begins with its recitation of the facts and with its description of the arbitration process. Two aspects of the majority’s factual' account merit elaboration.
A. The Arbitrator’s Decision
In my view, the majority mischaracter-izes what the arbitrator found in deciding to reinstate Leonard. The majority concludes that the arbitrator refused to decide whether the sexual harassment against Wiegand actually occurred. It derives this conclusion from, among other things, “the substance of the opinion, read as a whole.” Majority Opinion, Note 2. With all respect, the majority misapprehends what the arbitrator decided.
The arbitrator expressly stated his view at numerous points that there was insufficient evidence to find that sexual harassment had in fact occurred. His opinion explicitly suggested that there was not a sufficient basis to believe Kimberly Wie-gand’s allegations: “If Stroehmann’s investigation had been at all consistent with the severity of Wiegand’s accusations and of their consequences for Leonard’s life and if that investigation had provided an adequate basis to believe that Leonard had behaved as charged, Stroehmann’s discharge decision would have been unassailable.” (emphasis added).2 In finding that Stroehmann’s discharge decision would have been unassailable had it had an adequate basis, the arbitrator implicitly held that there was an inadequate basis for the charge of sexual harassment.3
The remainder of the arbitrator’s opinion also suggested that he found the charge against Leonard unsubstantiated. He (correctly) characterized the information on which Stroehmann relied in making its discharge decision as “double hearsay.” He also stated quite clearly that if the issue of resolving the credibility of witnesses were before him, “Stroehmann would have had to lose for having failed to bear its burden of proof.” In short, contrary to the implication of the majority opinion, the arbitrator did not refuse to find whether sexual harassment occurred. Rather, he found 1) that Stroehmann had not complied with the *1449requirements of the collective bargaining agreement because it had not adduced sufficient evidence to discharge Leonard under the just cause provision of the collective bargaining agreement and 2) there was an inadequate basis for believing that the sexual harassment had in fact occurred.
B. Requirements of the Collective Bargaining Agreement
The majority opinion does not contain an extensive discussion of the salient requirements of the collective bargaining agreement that governed the severance of the employment relationship. It is therefore important to note that the agreement required that “higher management ... investigate and collect the facts before a final and official dismissal is declared.” As I read the record, no such investigation took place. The arbitrator’s finding that the investigation of Leonard was insufficient in light of Stroehmann’s failure to honor its obligations under the collective bargaining agreement therefore seems perfectly in accord with the arbitrator’s obligations in construing the agreement, regardless of whether sexual harassment in fact occurred.
II.
I agree with the majority’s statement that courts owe broad deference to arbitrators in the construction of collective bargaining agreements. Indeed, the Supreme Court has held that “as long as the arbitrator is even arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of his authority, that a court is convinced he committed serious error does not suffice to overturn his decision.” United Paper-workers International Union v. Misco, 484 U.S. 29, 108 S.Ct. 364, 371, 98 L.Ed.2d 286 (1987). I also agree with the majority that courts may review arbitrators’ awards to ensure that those awards are consistent with public policy. I believe, however, that the majority’s abbreviated discussion of the narrow contours of that review leads it into error, and I therefore discuss briefly my understanding of the scope of our review. As the Supreme Court has held, the ability to review arbitrators’ awards for violations of public policy “does not ... sanction a broad judicial power to set aside arbitration awards as against public policy.” Id. at 373. Misco made clear that the mere showing that a public policy was implicated in the decision to discharge an employee is not sufficient to reverse an arbitrator’s award. Rather, the award itself must contravene public policy. As the Court stated in Misco:
[A] court’s refusal to enforce an arbitrator’s interpretation of such contracts is limited to situations where the contract as interpreted would violate “some explicit public policy that is well-defined and dominant, and is to be ascertained ‘by reference to the laws and legal precedents and not from general considerations of supposed public interests.’ ”
Id. at 373.
In United States Postal Service v. National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO, 839 F.2d 146 (3d Cir.1988), decided in the wake of Misco, we defined more specifically the limited contours of judicial review of arbitrators’ decisions:
[T]he Court in Misco delimited the methods by which a public policy and its contravention are to be ascertained. Misco specifically rejected, as exceeding the court’s reviewing authority, techniques employed by a district court in: (1) asserting a public policy without substantiating its existence within existing laws and legal precedents, and thereby failing to distinguish its pedigree as a ‘well defined and dominant’ policy as opposed to a ‘general consideration of supposed public interests;’ (2) second-guessing the arbitrator’s factfinding particularly insofar as the conclusion that the asserted public policy would be violated by the employee’s reinstatement depends on drawing factual inferences not made by the arbitrator; (3) second-guessing the arbitrator’s reasonable construction of the ‘just cause’ clause, and the rules of evidence and procedure appropriate to a ‘just cause’ determination under the collective-bargaining agreement.
*1450Id. at 148. Postal Service thus prohibits setting aside arbitrator’s awards: 1) when there is no showing that a dominant and well-defined public policy exists; 2) when a judicial finding that the public policy would be violated relies on inferences of fact not made by the arbitrator; and 3) when a court’s finding that a public policy has been violated is, in actuality, merely a disagreement with the arbitrator’s construction of a just cause provision. Thus, in reviewing arbitrator’s decisions, we must do more than merely ascertain that a genuine public policy is involved. We must also determine, based on facts that the arbitrator has found, that the award would violate public policy.
III.
The majority has faithfully complied with the requirement of ascertaining a dominant and well-defined public policy. As its opinion details, a public policy against sexual harassment in the workplace can readily be derived from federal statutes and regulations as well as from judicial decisions. I agree that if the public policy against sexual harassment were offended by this arbitrator’s decision, the award could not stand.
My agreement with the majority ends there, however. The majority’s opinion rests on inferences of fact not made by the arbitrator and, at bottom, quarrels with the arbitrator’s construction of the just cause provision. Although the public policy against sexual harassment is tossed loosely about in the majority’s opinion, it is crucial to understand what is not at stake in this case. The majority’s opinion cannot claim, based on this record, that Leonard is likely to commit sexual harassment again (if he ever has) if he is reinstated. Nothing in the arbitrator’s factfinding, or, indeed, in the entire record, suggests that Leonard would ever again (if he ever has) sexually harass another woman.4
Instead, the majority finds a violation of public policy in the arbitrator’s failure to make a conclusive determination whether such harassment occurred. As I have already suggested, I believe that the arbitrator made the best possible determination that he could about whether any harassment occurred, and concluded that it did not. See pages 1438-39. That is sufficient, in and of itself, to uphold the arbitrator’s award. Even assuming, however, that the arbitrator made no determination about harassment, the majority must demonstrate why his failure to do so violates public policy. Nothing in the record suggests that the award will directly promote further sexual harassment by Leonard; therefore, the public policy in favor of discouraging sexual harassment itself is not implicated.
Rather, the majority holds that “an arbitrator’s award reinstating an employee ac*1451cused of sexual harassment without a determination regarding the merits of the allegation violates well-established and dominant public policies concerning sexual harassment in the workplace.” Majority Opinion at 1438. This public policy analysis is deeply flawed. At the outset, I cannot see how guaranteeing procedural fairness to employees accused of sexual harassment can violate the public policy against sexual harassment. It is merely an extension of the arbitration principle that employees accused of any wrongdoing are accorded fair treatment and protected from the impulses of their employer.
Further, and more egregiously, the majority’s holding skews the rules governing arbitration of claims of sexual harassment against an employee. If an employee is accused of sexual harassment and cannot conclusively disprove its occurrence, the majority would find a violation of public policy if that employee is reinstated. This effectively shifts the burden of proof to the accused employee. I do not believe that placing such a burden on accused employees is required or justified by the public policy against sexual harassment. Moreover, I believe that such a practice would directly contravene the just cause clause for which the parties have bargained.
The majority attempts to narrow its holding by confining it to “the circumstances present here,” see Majority Opinion at pages 1438, 1442. There is, however, no logical reason why this case will differ from any future case where a company accuses an employee of some offense viola-tive of public policy that the employee cannot disprove at arbitration. If the majority believes this case to be unique because the arbitrator was biased, then the case can be resolved on the basis of his bias alone without reference to public policy. See Misco, 108 S.Ct. at 371 (noting that arbitration decisions resulting from fraud or arbitrator dishonesty and fraud can be set aside). The majority, however, relies heavily on public policy, and because there is no analytic difference between this case and future cases where companies allege that employees have committed acts violative of public policy which cannot be conclusively proven or disproven, the employee, under the majority’s logic, might retain the burden in this circuit to disprove the occurrence of the act which is said to violate public policy.
The majority’s holding is unprecedented, and its effort to distinguish prior cases is unpersuasive. Indeed, two recent cases strongly militate against the majority’s conclusion. In Communication Workers of America v. Southeastern Electric Cooperative, 882 F.2d 467 (10th Cir.1989), the Tenth Circuit upheld an arbitrator’s award reinstating after a period of suspension an employee who had undisputedly engaged in sexual harassment. The court held that it could not disturb the arbitrator’s award despite the fact that a known sexual harasser would eventually be allowed to return to the workplace. The Seventh Circuit reached a similar conclusion in Chrysler Motors v. International Union, Allied Industrial Workers of America, 959 F.2d 685 (7th Cir.1992). In Chrysler, an employee had undoubtedly engaged in egregious sexual harassment. The company discharged the employee, but the arbitrator reduced the penalty to a thirty-day suspension. Essentially rejecting the argument that the majority makes here, the Seventh Circuit found no violation of public policy despite the employee’s reinstatement after the company had overwhelmingly established that sexual harassment had occurred. Here, the majority finds it a violation of public policy for an arbitrator to reinstate an accused sexual harasser, against whom a case of sexual harassment could not be proven. If those who have sexually harassed can return to work without contravening public policy, certainly those against whom there is an insufficient basis to prove sexual harassment can also return to work without contravening public policy.
Our own precedents compel the same conclusion. In Postal Service, 839 F.2d at 149, we upheld an arbitrator’s award rein*1452stating an employee who had fired a gun at his employer’s car. We approved that award as consistent with public policy because “[a] judgment about the offending employee’s amenability to discipline comes under the scope of the arbitrator’s factfind-ing authority ...” Id. at 149. Even though the employee was arguably likely to commit other acts of violence against employees, we did not find a contravention of public policy. Similarly, in this case, where no sexual harassment has been found in the first place, I would hold that we should defer to the arbitrator — who has evaluated the credibility of witnesses and evaluated what, if any, discipline is appropriate — to reinstate Leonard.
IV.
Nor is the majority content to find a public policy violation and invalidate the award of the arbitrator on that basis. The majority, in the name of public policy, intrudes on what courts have repeatedly reserved for the arbitrators and reverses the arbitrator’s award because it finds unreasonable the arbitrator’s construction of the just cause provision.
As the majority acknowledges, arbitrators have repeatedly relied on the doctrine of industrial due process in construing just cause provisions. See generally Frank El-kouri and Edna Asper Elkouri, How Arbitration Works 673 (Bureau of National Affairs 1985). That doctrine is well-established in the jurisprudence of labor arbitration, see id at 673 n 116 (collecting cases), and in federal labor jurisprudence, see Super Tire Engineering Co v. Teamsters Local Union No. 676, 721 F.2d 121, 124-25 (3d Cir.1983); Federated Dep’t Stores v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 1442, 901 F.2d 1494, 1497 (9th Cir.1990). In this case, the arbitrator made clear in his opinion his belief that the collective bargaining agreement required Stroeh-mann to do two things that it failed to do in this instance: 1) to conduct a high-level management investigation with procedural protections for Leonard; and 2) to carry its burden of proof and demonstrate that the harassment had occurred.
The majority states its belief that Stroeh-mann afforded Leonard ample due process in its discharge decision. I believe that the facts clearly demonstrate otherwise. Under the collective bargaining agreement, Leonard was entitled to a thorough investigation of the charges against him by high-level management which he never received. Also, Stroehmann officials admitted at the arbitration hearing that they had made the decision to suspend Leonard before ever hearing his version of the story. As if the prejudgment were not troubling enough, Stroehmann officials refused to consider what may have been the most significant (and perhaps the only) objective evidence in the case — the broken CB radio. Immediately upon being told of Wiegand’s charge against him, Leonard told Stroehmann officials that Wiegand’s description of Leonard’s tale of an erotic conversation over the CB radio was demonstrably false because his CB was. broken. Leonard stated that he had offered Stroehmann officials the opportunity to inspect it, which they declined. Additionally, as I have noted above, there were inconsistencies in Wie-gand’s story that Stroehmann chose to ignore. See note 3. These undisputed facts point to the conclusion that Leonard was deprived of industrial due process.
Even assuming that the investigation was adequate, however, Stroehmann did not carry its burden at the arbitration of showing that Leonard was discharged for just cause. The arbitrator found that the collective bargaining agreement required Stroehmann to provide sufficient evidence for a “supportable judgment” to demonstrate that the harassment had occurred. The arbitrator, to whom we owe complete deference in factfinding in the absence of fraud or dishonesty, see Misco, 108 S.Ct. at 371, found that the facts were inadequate to support a judgment that sexual harassment had occurred.
At all events, even if, after de novo review, we believed that Leonard had been afforded sufficient due process and Stroeh-mann had proven its case, we would still not be entitled to reverse the arbitrator’s award. As Misco makes clear, we owe *1453deference to the arbitrator when he is even arguably construing the collective bargaining agreement. Id. There can be no doubt that the arbitrator in this case articulated what he believed was required by the collective bargaining agreement. That interpretation and his factfinding cannot be disturbed absent a showing that the decision was procured “through fraud or through the arbitrator’s dishonesty ...” Id. No such showing was made, and the majority does not so argue.
In sum, despite the fact that precedent requires overwhelming deference to the arbitrator, the majority articulates no reason why such deference should not be accorded in this case, except that an important public policy principle is at stake, namely sexual harassment. With all respect, I believe that formulation turns the process of reviewing arbitration awards upside down. Because this undermines the entire arbitration process in sexual harassment cases, I would reverse the .judgment of the district court and reinstate the arbitrator’s award.
Y.
Finally, the majority approves the district court’s assault on the arbitrator’s decision in this case by affirming the district court’s remand of this case to be heard anew before a different arbitrator. It does so despite acknowledging that the district court misrepresented the arbitrator’s comments and that the arbitrator did not exhibit inappropriate attitudes about sexual harassment generally. Majority Opinion at 1446. Instead, the court bases its decision to choose a different arbitrator: 1) on our deferential scope of review of the district court’s discretionary choice of a remedy; and 2) on the arbitrator’s allowance of questions at the hearing and on various comments that the arbitrator made in his opinion. The majority concludes that these comments demonstrate sufficient bias against this particular sexual harassment claim to hold that it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to remand the matter to a different arbitrator. Alternatively, the majority submits that the arbitrator’s statement that if he had to make a finding on the merits he would rule in favor of Leonard, suggests a bias that merits remanding this case to a different arbitrator.
This record simply does not support the majority’s contention that the arbitrator exhibited bias against this sexual harassment claim. Each reference that the majority makes to indications of bias in the record is fully explicable if the statements are put in context. The arbitrator did allow questions about whether “an average man” would sexually harass Wiegand. But the arbitrator’s opinion itself suggests that such considerations were irrelevant to his decision and that he found them offensive. He commented, “[Wjhether or not Wiegand is a very Christian girl, or whether Wiegand’s words or acts may have invited Leonard’s alleged misconduct[,]_ sexual misconduct of the kind charged is absolutely inappropriate and should support immediate discharge.” The majority further engages in mischaracterization of the arbitrator’s opinion by excerpting the phrase “unattractive and frustrated.” In fact, the arbitrator suggested that to conclude that Wie-gand had not been sexually harassed because she was unattractive and frustrated would be an “illogical conclusion.” In sum, the arbitrator was not biased against the claim. Instead, he rejected the evidence produced by Stroehmann’s shoddy investigation.
The majority also rests its decision to remand to a different arbitrator on the arbitrator’s statement that if he had to decide the ultimate issue of whether sexual harassment occurred, he would rule for Leonard because there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that sexual harassment had occurred. The majority opines that this statement indicates that the arbitrator has already prejudged the case. To me, the arbitrator’s comments only suggest that the majority’s interpretation of the case is incorrect from the outset. The arbitrator found that Leonard had not been given due process, which entitled him to reinstatement, and found, in the alternative, that there was insufficient evidence of sexual harassment to terminate Leonard. *1454Trial judges frequently “layer” their opinions in this manner.
There is no logical difference between the remedy that the majority approves in this case and remanding an Article III case with directions that it be assigned to a different district judge because that judge has provided alternate bases for his or her decision. I cannot conceive of our ordering such a reassignment merely because the judge had provided an alternate basis for his or her opinion, or on evidence of bias as flimsy as it is here. We should be even less willing to direct the remand of the present matter to a different arbitrator because of the heightened deference we owe to the arbitrators’ decisions. Although I would not remand in the first instance, I believe that if we must remand, we should remand to the same arbitrator.
VI.
For the foregoing reasons, I would reverse the judgment of the district court and reinstate the arbitration award.
. I have previously criticized the exceedingly narrow review we have given to arbitral awards, see News America Publications, Inc., Daily Racing Form Division v. Newark Typographical Union, Local 103, 921 F.2d 40, 41 (3d Cir.1990) (Becker, Statement Sur Denial of Rehearing In Banc) (arguing that the narrow scope of review of arbitral awards effectively gives "all power to the arbitrators," id. at 42, but I am bound by our precedent).
. In discussing my characterization of the arbitrator's opinion, the majority states, “The dissent is wrong." Majority Opinion at 1444. The majority bases its conclusion on the surrounding sentences of the arbitrator's opinion in which the arbitrator stated that he was not required, under the circumstances, to weigh the evidence and evaluate the credibility of the witnesses. I find the majority’s conclusion somewhat puzzling in this regard because elsewhere in its opinion, the majority appears to agree with my reading of the arbitrator’s opinion: "[H]e stated that if he had to make a factual determination regarding the occurrence of the incident, he would have to find in favor of Leonard because he had insufficient evidence to determine whether Leonard or Wiegand was more credible.” Majority Opinion at 1440. Because Stroehmann had the burden of demonstrating just cause for discharge under the agreement, its failure to demonstrate Wiegand’s credibility required the arbitrator to find for Leonard. At the very least the surrounding sentences do not undermine the clear import of the arbitrator’s views.
. I note in this regard that the majority opinion fails to address the inconsistencies in Wiegand’s underlying story, which would tend to exculpate Leonard. The majority suggests that there is no dispute about what Wiegand says occurred on November 12, 1989. In fact, the record reflects at least two different versions of the facts, related at'different times by Wiegand. In one story, told to her mother, Wiegand alleged that Leonard sexually harassed her after he had finished delivering all of his products, and the harassment consisted of pushing against her and grabbing her breast. In the other version, told to Stroehmann officials Steve Garrett and Joe Jacobs, the sexual harassment began immediately upon Leonard’s arrival in the store. The second version contained details omitted from the first version, including a discussion of an erotic CB radio conversation and comparisons of the firmness of her breast to an orange.
My point is not that one of these incidents would constitute sexual harassment and one would not. Nor is it to suggest that Wiegand was fabricating her story. The inconsistency in the underlying alleged facts does suggest, however, that because of the shoddy manner in which Stroehmann conducted its investigation, Stroehmann might not have satisfied its burden of proof under the “just cause” section of the collective bargaining agreement.
. That fact makes this case plainly distinguishable from Newsday, Inc. v. Long Island Typographical Union, No. 915, 915 F.2d 840 (2d Cir.1990). In Newsday, an employer suspended an employee for sexual harassment. An arbitrator sustained the suspension and held that any further incidents of harassment would lead to discharge. After this initial arbitration, the employer discharged the same employee after more complaints of sexual harassment had been made against him. Id. at 842. At the second arbitration, the arbitrator specifically found that these repeated incidents of sexual harassment had, in fact, occurred. Id. at 843. The arbitrator acknowledged that reinstatement might possibly lead to further incidents of sexual harassment but decided that, in the event further incidents occurred, they would lead to the employee’s discharge. In so deciding, the second arbitrator ignored the first arbitrator’s command that any further incidents of sexual harassment should lead to discharge. The Second Circuit held that, in light of the earlier ineffective warning and in light of the likelihood of further sexual harassment, reinstatement of the employee would violate public policy.
In this case, there has never been a finding that Leonard sexually harassed anyone. As I have explained, there was an implicit finding that no such sexual harassment occurred. Even if there were such a finding of past behavior, however, there is no indication in this record that Leonard’s reinstatement is likely to lead to further sexual harassment. Therefore, unlike Newsday, the public policy against sexual harassment per se is not offended by reinstating Leonard.