With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". entitled to back pay. We accepted review. Kitsap County Deputy Sheriff’s Guild v. Kitsap County, 163 Wn.2d 1038, 187 P.3d 270 (2008). ISSUES 1. Does an arbitration decision reinstating a deputy sheriff who has been found to be untruthful violate an explicit, well defined, and dominant public policy and must it therefore be vacated? 2. Does the arbitration award qualify LaFrance for back pay? STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶6 This case involves a question of law, which we review de novo. State v. Ford, 125 tate courts have held that — like any other contract — an arbitration decision arising out of a collective bargaining agreement can be vacated if it violates public policy. See E. Associated Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers of Am., 531 U.S. 57, 67, 121 S. Ct. 462, 148 L. Ed. 2d 354 (2000) (<HOLDING>). This public policy exception is limited to

A: holding that an arbitration award based on the conclusion that unappended waiver forms are unenforceable pursuant to public policy is not reviewable by the courts because as stated in schultz it is not based on an allegation that a specific provision in an insurance policy contravenes public policy
B: holding that an order remanding an arbitration award is not a final appealable order when the order does not also vacate the arbitration award
C: holding that driver was not bound in subsequent personal injury case by prior arbitration decision that plaintiffs injuries were related to auto accident because driver was not in privity with his insurance carrier and did not participate in arbitration
D: holding that public policy did not prohibit an arbitration award reinstating a truck driver who tested positive for marijuana twice
D.