at higher levels, were doing the work which he felt he should be doing because he had more seniority than any of those who were doing the work.


4
On June 14, 1983, petitioner filed the following grievance with Fischer:


5
Company working employees with less seniority on helpers jobs, while Grievant is laid off.


6
The settlement requested is:  Be called to work and paid for all lost time.


7
A hearing was held before the arbitrator on September 27, 1983.  The hearing was neither recorded nor transcribed and no record of it exists.


8
On October 6, 1983, the arbitrator issued his decision.  The opinion states that, at the hearing, 'oral and written argument and evidence were heard and received.'  In summarizing the contentions of the parties, the arbitrator stated that theunion contended that '[t]he Grievant was the most senior employee on layoff,' and that the company contended that he was not the most senior helper on layoff.  On the seniority issue, the arbitrator found:


9
[ ]  Company testimony at the hearing revealed that [Tate] would not have been the proper Helper to have been recalled to work, because there were three other Helpers who were more senior than he was, and the recall would properly have gone to the most senior, available one of them.


10
Although concluding that Fischer had violated the contract, the arbitrator denied the grievance.  His award states:


11
The Company did violate the Agreement by working less senior employees from higher job classifications in the Helper classification.  The Grievant is not the logical recipient