What options do I have when a journal refuses my paper based on 1/3 review by a non-relevant referee? We submitted a paper to a fairly average journal and received a major revision decision. We made the suggested changes and resubmitted. The revision was reviewed by three referees and two of them mentioned that they were satisfied with the changes and the paper warrants a publication. The third reviewer made some strong comments and the editor's decision was 'reject'. 

The third reviewer again raised some of the same concerns as the first two reviewers' original ones along with some completely irrelevant ones. For instance, one comment was that our technique did not improve performance; we were trying to improve the expressiveness of the model and claimed that this expressiveness did not come with a performance penalty. 

I have already sent a request for reconsideration to the journal's editors but based on their past communication, I do not expect a positive response. 

My question is: Is there a way to report such an incidence to the publisher? At a higher level of abstraction: is there a check in place for editors of journals or do they get a free hand after they have been appointed? 

(I do not care much about the paper as I can probably find another venue; the paper is an extension of a highly cited work. I just want to make sure I play my part in keeping the academic process in line because I have seen it slip a little too often.) 

If this information is needed: The journal is an "impact factor" journal published by Springer. 

Edit: Just to clarify, "options" refer to ways to play my part in improving the system. The publication of this particular paper is not an issue as mentioned in the parentheses above.
Half-joking, half-serious:

Next time you're having some beers with some trusted colleagues, tell this story and gripe about this particular journal. For one, it will blow off some steam. (Caveat: I wouldn't recommend complaining to people you don't know well, at least if you are junior.)

Moreover, in the long run, this is how reputations are built or lost. If your colleagues are as upset by your story as you are, then they might tell it to others, avoid publishing in this journal, and/or decline referee requests from this journal's editors. (Conversely, if your colleagues think you're being unreasonable, you might get some useful advice.)

This would have only a minor effect of course, but it would do more than contacting the publisher: in the long run, authors hold all the cards, as a journal is only as good as the papers that get submitted to it.