dissenting. Because I believe that the arbitrator fashioned his own brand of industrial justice, and that affirming the PELRB’s decision threatens to create unnecessary uncertainty in our state’s labor law jurisprudence, I respectfully dissent. I first explain why I disagree with the majority’s analysis, and then set forth how I would resolve this case.
I
The arbitral submission asked the arbitrator to resolve the following inquiry: ‘Whether there was just cause for the County to terminate Ms. Foote under the collective bargaining agreement? If not, what shall the remedy be?” The majority holds that this submission, combined with the fact that the CBA “did not reference ‘just cause’” allowed the arbitrator to apply a “‘traditional just cause standard’” to essentially exercise his independent judgment to determine the level of discipline for Foote’s conduct.
*49Article 24 of the CBA provides: “Any instance of physical, verbal, mental or medical abuse/neglect/exploitation of any resident shall be grounds for immediate termination.” (Emphasis added.) The majority apparently concludes that there is a meaningful difference between article 24 and a hypothetical CBA that provides: “Any instance of physical, verbal, mental or medical abuse/neglect/exploitation of any resident shall be just cause for immediate termination.” I do not agree. Moreover, drawing such a distinction threatens to create unnecessary uncertainty about how we will resolve future cases. For example, other CBAs might contain language such as: (1) “Any instance of physical, verbal, mental or medical abuse/neglect/exploitation of any resident shall be reason for immediate termination”; or (2) “Any instance of physical, verbal, mental or medical abuse/neglect/exploitation of any resident shall be cause for immediate termination.” We will have to decide where, along a continuum, this alternative language falls, or require parties at the bargaining table to use one synonym, i.e. “just cause” over another, i.e. “grounds,” “reason” or “cause.”
Treatises, case law, and dictionaries support the view that “just cause,” “cause,” “reason” and “grounds” are not distinct concepts when they are used in a collectively bargained-for agreement to describe conduct that serves as an adequate basis for discharge. Those offenses that are “grounds,” “cause” or “reason” for termination are necessarily “just cause” for termination. Thus, by expressly and unambiguously providing specific “grounds” for termination, the CBA did reference a “just cause” standard.
One respected arbitration treatise observes:
Most collective bargaining agreements do, in fact, require “cause” or “just cause” for discharge or discipline____ It is common to include the right to suspend and discharge for “just cause,” “justifiable cause,” “proper cause,” “obvious cause,” or quite commonly simply for “cause.” There is no significant difference between these various phrases.
Elkouri & Elkouri, How Arbitration Works 887 (5th ed. 1997) (brackets omitted; emphasis added).
Numerous courts use these terms interchangeably. See, e.g., Intern. Broth. of Firemen v. Nestle Co., Inc., 630 F.2d 474, 475-77 (6th Cir. 1980) (repeatedly using “cause” and “grounds” interchangeably); Bruce Hardwood Floors v. UBC, Indus. Work. No. 2713, 103 F.3d 449, 455 (5th Cir. 1997) (Benavides, J., dissenting) (using “ground” as synonym for “proper cause”), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 928 (1997); Ohio Off. of Coll. Barg. v. Civ. Serv. Emp., 572 N.E.2d 71, 75 (Ohio 1991) (using “ground” *50interchangeably with “causes” and holding, “In essence, dishonesty, as a ground for immediate discharge, is per se just cause.”); School Dist. of Beverly v. Geller, 755 N.E.2d 1241, 1247 n.8 (Mass. 2001) (summarizing cases where CBAs list reasons for dismissal and using the terms “just cause,” “proper cause,” “cause” and “grounds” interchangeably); Marathon Oil Co. v. Local Union No. 283, No. 97-1780, 1998 WL 702357, at *2 (6th Cir. Sept. 25, 1998)(using “grounds” and “cause” synonymously).
Neither dictionaries nor thesauruses augur well for a distinction between these terms. See, e.g., American Heritage Dictionary 799 (3d ed. 1992) (definition of “ground” provides: “Often grounds. The underlying condition prompting an action; a cause: grounds for suspicion; a ground for divorce.”); WEBSTER’S THIRD New INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 356 (unabridged ed. 2002) (“cause” means “a good or adequate reason: a sufficient activating factor <an employee discharged for —>”); RANDOM House Dictionary of the English Language 235 (1966) (similar); Black’s Law Dictionary 1031 (8th ed. 1999) (“cause” means “A ground for legal action <the plaintiff does not have cause to file suit>. good cause. A legally sufficient reason____ The term is often used in employment-termination cases. — Also termed good cause shown; just cause; lawful cause; sufficient cause.”); Legal Thesaurus 67 (2d ed. 1992) (“cause” and “ground” are synonyms).
Even the arbitrator, with his broad discretion to construe the CBA, Paperworkers v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 38 (1987), did not specifically offer an interpretation of the word “grounds.” Instead, he acknowledged that article 24 provides that “certain kinds of conduct shall be grounds for immediate termination” and “clearly put[s] members of the bargaining unit, including Foote, on notice that they could be subject to immediate termination for incidents of abuse.” Then, as the basis for his decision, he appears to have essentially used “just cause” in the arbitral submission as a vehicle to mete out a penalty that he did not find “harsh” or “unreasonable.” In so doing, the arbitrator did not engage in contract interpretation, or even permissible contract misinterpretation. See Misco, 484 U.S. at 38 (“[A]s 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.”). Instead, he departed from the CBA to arrive at his own brand of industrial justice, a result that is prohibited by the plain language of the CBA (“the arbitrator shall have no authority to add to, subtract from, or modify any terms of this agreement”), the plain language of the arbitral submission (‘Whether there was just cause for the County to terminate Ms. Foote under the collective bargaining agreement. If not, *51what shall the remedy be?” (emphasis added)), and well-settled, persuasive and overwhelming authority from jurisdictions across the country.
Courts in other jurisdictions consistently hold that where an employment agreement lists certain behavior as grounds or cause for termination, and where there is a finding that such conduct has occurred, the arbitrator is not free to fashion his own remedy. Although the term “just cause” often appears in these cases, its absence does not change the essential reasoning. See, e.g., Poland Spring Corp. v. United Food, Local 1445, 314 F.3d 29, 34-35 (1st Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 818 (2003) (“once an arbitrator finds that an employee has committed an act specifically listed in the collective bargaining agreement as providing just cause for termination, the arbitrator is not free to fashion a separate remedy apart from the one provided by the parties’ agreement”); Logistics Personnel v. Truck Drivers Local Union, 6 F. Supp. 2d 650, 655 (E.D. Mich. 1998) (where CBA provides that testing positive on drug test is grounds for termination, “the only relevant question, under the collective bargaining agreement, is whether the employee ... tested positive”); Bruce, 103 F.3d at 452 (where CBA states that employee will be discharged for immoral conduct, arbitrator not free to impose ten-day suspension); Warrior & Gulf Nav. v. United Steelworkers, 996 F.2d 279, 281 (11th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1083 (1994) (where agreement required “just cause” for termination and listed certain acts for which an employee could be discharged, arbitrator lacked discretion to reduce discharge to suspension); Delta Queen Steamboat Co. v. Dist. 2 Marine Eng., 889 F.2d 599, 601, 604 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 853 (1990) (where agreement provides for termination for “proper cause” and lists behavior that would constitute cause, arbitrator is not free to weigh proved conduct against other factors); Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Local 27, 864 F.2d 940, 945 (1st Cir. 1988) (where arbitrator uses “just cause” as a means of ignoring specifically enumerated grounds for discharge, he engages in a “patent example of arbitral excess”); S.D. Warren Co. v. United Paperworkers’ Intern., 845 F.2d 3, 8 (1st Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 992 (1988) (where agreement provides discharge for “proper cause” and identifies specific causes upon which discharge may be based, arbitrator may not order different remedy for proved conduct); Metro Chevrolet v. Union de Tronquistas, 835 F.2d 3, 5 (1st Cir. 1987) (when general “just cause” provision in contract is combined with provision that lists specific conduct upon which discharge may be based, appropriateness of penalty is removed from arbitrator’s consideration); Nestle, 630 F.2d at 476 (where contract provides insubordination is basis for termination, arbitrator not free to decide that termination is too severe a penalty); Mistletoe Exp. Serv. v. Motor Expressmen’s Union, 566 F.2d 692, 695 *52(10th Cir. 1977) (where agreement provides employer may terminate employment if employee fails to meet certain conditions, arbitrator not free to substitute his own judgment for the employer’s decision to terminate); Cty. Coll. of Mortis Staff v. Cty. Coll., 495 A.2d 865 (N.J. 1985) (where agreement includes list of conduct for which employees can be discharged, arbitrator exceeds his authority by reducing discharge to suspension); Ohio Off. of Coll. Barg., 572 N.E.2d at 75 (agreement provides that abuse of patient is cause to terminate and arbitrator not free to reduce penalty from termination); City of East Providence v. United Steel Workers of Am., Local 15509, Nos. 2006-145-Appeal & 2006-162-Appeal, 2007 WL 1828760, at *8 (R.I. June 27, 2007) (where arbitrator determines that just cause exists, it is “patently irrational” for him to exceed his authority by considering an alternate form of discipline). There is no persuasive reason that our state’s labor law jurisprudence should be different.
The cases relied upon by the majority are distinguishable. For example, in Bureau of Engraving v. Graphic Communication International Union, 284 F.3d 821, 824 (8th Cir. 2002), the arbitral submission asked the arbitrator to determine ‘“Whether the Employer had just cause to terminate the employment of grievant, Linda Puffer, and if not, what should be the remedy?”’ Thus, in contrast to the instant ease, the arbitral submission in Bureau of Engraving made no reference to determining just cause “under the CBA." The argument for allowing an arbitrator to depart from the CBA is much stronger when the arbitral submission, for whatever reason, gives the arbitrator broad authority and does not require him to be grounded in the parties’ agreement.
In Homestake Mining Co. v. United Steelworkers of America, 153 F.3d 678, 680 (8th Cir. 1998), the arbitrator determined that the worker’s conduct did not constitute a violation of the employer’s rule. Here, by contrast, the arbitrator expressly found that Foote did abuse the elderly resident.
In Trailmobile Trailer, LLC v. International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, Machine and Furniture Workers, 223 F.3d 744, 746 (8th Cir. 2000), a handbook provision that listed examples of conduct that “may subject an employee to immediate discharge without warning” was at issue, and the CBA provided that the employer could only enforce “reasonable rules.” In the instant case, there is no provision at issue regarding the enforcement of “reasonable rules” and the proscribed conduct is written directly into the CBA.
In LB & B Associates v. International Brotherhood, 461 F.3d 1195, 1196 (10th Cir. 2006), the CBA provided that an employee who engaged in sexual harassment “‘may be subject to immediate discharge.’” Id. *53(emphasis omitted). The Tenth Circuit expressly noted that if the CBA did not use such permissive language, a different outcome would have obtained. Id. at 1198 n.2. The CBA here uses the word “shall.” See Dancart Corp. v. St. Albans Rubber Co., 124 N.H. 598, 602 (1984) (the word “shall” “commonly does have a mandatory character”).
In Boston Medical v. Service Employees, Local 285, 260 F.3d 16, 21 (1st Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1083 (2002), there was no provision at issue which enumerated specific grounds for dismissal. Instead, the arbitrator was charged with reconciling a management rights clause, reserving to management the exclusive right to discipline, and a clause providing that employees could be discharged only for “just cause.” Id. at 20-21. The First Circuit expressly noted that Boston Medical is distinguishable from “a case where the collective bargaining agreement specifically provides for automatic discharge in [certain] situations____” Id. at 23 n.5.
In Local 238 International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Cargill, Inc., 66 F.3d 988, 990 (8th Cir. 1995), the Eighth Circuit found “an inherent tension or ambiguity” between the CBA and a drug and alcohol policy that was not “written verbatim into the collective bargaining agreement.” However, the court clearly stated that “[i]f the collective bargaining agreement expressly provided that an employee who refuses to take an alcohol test “will be terminated,’ we would agree with the district court’s decision that the arbitrator’s award ‘ignored the plain mandatory language’ of that agreement----” Id. Here, the CBA states that abuse shall be grounds for termination. No separate policy is involved.
In order to uphold the arbitrator’s decision, the majority turns to a seven-factor test. There are two reasons why we should not turn to that test in this case. First, the arbitral submission did not ask the arbitrator to decide: “Whether there was just cause for the County to terminate Ms. Foote? If not, what shall the remedy be?” Instead, it asked the arbitrator to resolve the following concrete inquiry: “Whether there was just cause for the County to terminate Ms. Foote under the collective bargaining agreement? If not, what shall the remedy be?” (Emphasis added.) Thus, the arbitrator’s decision had to be anchored in the plain language of the CBA, language that unambiguously lists the conduct that constitutes “grounds” — “just cause” — to terminate. The arbitrator was not free to depart from that language. If the parties had no intention of requiring the arbitrator to enforce the unambiguous contract terms, then they would not have inserted the phrase “under the collective bargaining agreement” into the arbitral submission.
Second, as the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has explained, the type of broad “just cause” analysis embodied by the *54seven-factor test comes into play when a collective bargaining agreement does not spell out conduct that shall serve as an adequate basis for discharge. Warrior Gulf & Nav., 996 F.2d at 281 n.8. It is not employed in every single case.
The Eleventh Circuit’s explanation is not inconsistent with Appeal of City of Manchester, 153 N.H. 289, 293 (2006), where we cited the seven-factor test with approval, but noted that in deciding just cause issues, the arbitrator has “the authority to consider the underlying issues and surrounding circumstances necessary to interpret and apply the express provisions of the CBA and reach a final decision.” (Emphasis added.) Here, the arbitrator examined the surrounding circumstances and found abuse. He was then compelled to apply the express provisions of the CBA. Nothing in Appeal of City of Manchester authorizes the arbitrator to supplant an express CBA provision with a seven-factor test. If we conclude that “just cause” means employing a seven-factor test in every case, then employers will never be able to make specific types of conduct grounds for immediate termination, because anytime they try to do so, their disciplinary decisions will be subject to upset by an arbitrator.
The majority states that if the county was concerned that the arbitrator might second-guess its decision to discharge Foote, then it could just have asked the arbitrator to “determine only whether Foote had engaged in the conduct of which she was accused.” If that is true, then both sides would have had to have been agreeable to the idea that under the CBA, abuse, alone, does constitute a valid basis to terminate employment. Clearly (and understandably), given the posture of this case, the union would never have made such a concession. In fact, it would seem that firing Foote for abuse was one impetus that led the union to grieve the case in the first place. Furthermore, it seems unfair to fault the county for failing to anticipate that the arbitrator would depart from the plain language of the CBA.
To borrow from the First Circuit:
The reservation of a right to ... discharge for [a particular type of conduct] would be wholly ineffective and meaningless if the employer’s action, pursuant to such right, is subject to review by an arbitrator on the basis of appropriateness. If the reserved right is construed to mean that the employer can take no disciplinary action in excess of a reprimand, except at its own risk and subject to severe penalties in case an arbitrator should later be of the opinion that some milder action is appropriate, the effect would be that the employer’s inherent right which has not been expressly relinquished by contract is no right at all.
*55Metro Chevrolet, 835 F.2d at 5 (quotation omitted).
II
Accordingly, I would adopt the reasoning of the cases that hold that where a CBA lists particular types of conduct as grounds for termination, the arbitrator’s inquiry ends when he finds that such conduct has occurred. Consistent with those cases, I would hold that although the “arbitrator ha[d] the authority, in the context of a just cause grievance, to consider the underlying issues and surrounding circumstances necessary to interpret and apply the express provisions of the CBA and reach a final decision,” Appeal of Town of Pelham, 154 N.H. 125, 128 (2006), his award nevertheless had to be consistent with the CBA and the arbitral submission. LaRocque v. R.W.F., Inc., 8 F.3d 95, 96-97 (1st Cir. 1993).
Article 24 does not say that termination for abuse may occur only where equitable or “fair.” See Poland Spring, 314 F.3d at 38 (Boudin, C.J., concurring). Rather, it states, “Any instance of physical, verbal, mental or medical abuse/neglect/exploitation of any resident shall be grounds for immediate termination.” (Emphasis added.) This language unambiguously gives the county just cause to terminate employment where abuse occurs. Moreover, article 2 of the CBA reserves “exclusively” to management the right to “discipline or discharge” employees. Taken together, articles 2 and 24 plainly contemplate that certain management decisions, such as termination for abuse, will not be second-guessed during arbitration. Significantly, as part of the CBA, these two provisions were among the terms and conditions bargained for by the parties and it was not for the arbitrator to ignore them. If the parties desired some other outcome, they were free to negotiate for other language to be included within the CBA.
The paramount point to be remembered in labor arbitration is that the power and authority of an arbitrator is totally derived from the collective bargaining agreement and that he violates his obligation to the parties if he substitutes his own brand of industrial justice for what has been agreed to by the parties.
Id. at 33 (quotations omitted).
The rationale for this holding is persuasive: “contractual provisions like the [termination for abuse] clause ... are bargained for and inserted precisely to take discretion away from arbitrators charged with enforcing the collective bargaining agreement.” Poland Spring, 314 F.3d at 34-35.
[T]o sustain [the arbitrator’s decision] in this case, notwithstanding the pre-negotiation that took place, [is] the equivalent of... saying that the parties engaged in a meaningless *56act by negotiating the disciplinary rules and incorporating them into the collective bargaining agreement. [It says] that the arbitrator retained the right to fashion remedies even when this contractual authority was not given by the parties. That is not the law.
Warren, 845 F.2d at 8.
The approach outlined above may seem unfair when applied to the instant case, especially since other employees had not been discharged for abusive conduct. However, the arbitrator was free to interpret the word “abuse,” and apply it however he saw fit. He was also free to find that Foote’s conduct did not constitute “abuse” within the meaning of the CBA. That said, once he made a finding that abuse occurred, the CBA unambiguously required him to uphold the county’s decision to terminate employment under the CBA. No interpretation of that directive is required, and ignoring it is reversible error.
In conclusion,
[i]t is not... satisfactory to say to employers that they can draft the collective bargaining agreement to clearly restrict the arbitrator from exercising the authority the arbitrator applied here. The realities of what happens at the bargaining table may make this illusory. [The CBA article at issue] was admirably drafted to give management some flexibility and give workers the protection that not every instance of [prohibited conduct] must mean termination. It can be questioned why the price of that flexibility should be to permit an arbitrator to second guess management’s judgment to be less forgiving [in certain instances].
Poland Spring, 314 F.3d at 42 (Lynch, J., dissenting). I would not impose such a price, and therefore respectfully dissent.
BRODERICK, C.J., joins in the dissent.