With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: holding that an arbitrator was not bound by an earlier award involving a different contract and different union
B: holding that the trial court not the arbitrator must decide a challenge to an arbitration provision based on public policy
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 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
C.