Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the matter if it finds a ground to vacate the award. This interpretation completely undermines the purpose of affording judicial review of arbitration awards in teacher-tenure cases, and is contrary to authority granting the court the discretion to remand for an arbitration hearing before a different arbitrator. See In re City of Camden, 429 N.J.Super. 309, 337-38, 58 A.3d 1186 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 215 N.J. 485, 73 A.3d 511 (2013) (permitting a remand to a different arbitrator “when deficiencies in the arbitrator’s process call into question the arbitrator’s ability to have an open mind regarding the disposition”); see also Fox v. Morris Cnty. Policemen’s Ass’n, P.B.A. 151, 266 N.J.Super. 501, 520-21, 630 A.2d 318 (App.Div.1993), certif. denied, 137 N.J. 311, 645 A.2d 140 (1994) (<HOLDING>); Manchester Twp. Bd. of Educ., supra, 199 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that while the determination of the scope of an arbitration agreement is for the court the enforcement of pleading requirements before the arbitrator is a procedural matter for the arbitrator (B) holding that an arbitrator was not bound by an earlier award involving a different contract and different union (C) holding that upon vacating an arbitration award the court has the discretion to remand to the same arbitrator or different arbitrator (D) holding that the trial court not the arbitrator must decide a challenge to an arbitration provision based on public policy (E) holding that because the parties agreed to arbitrate and both placed the issue before the arbitrator the issue of consolidation was for the arbitrator
Output (English): holding that because the parties agreed to arbitrate and both placed the issue before the arbitrator the issue of consolidation was for the arbitrator