Therefore, the court's function in reviewing the arbitration award is supervisory in nature. The goal of this review is to insure that the parties receive what they bargained for. Milwaukee Pro. Firefighters Local 215 v. Milwaukee, 78 Wis.2d 1, 22, 253 N.W.2d 481 (1977). See United Steelworkers of America v. American Mfg. Co., 363 U.S. 564 (1960); United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574 (1960); United Steelworkers of v. Enterprise Wheel Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593 (1960).

"Judicial review of arbitration awards is very limited." Milwaukee Professional Firefighters Local 215 v. City ofMilwaukee, 78 Wis.2d 1, 21, 253 N.W.2d 481, 491 (1977). Our function is merely a supervisory one, ensuring "that the parties receive the arbitration that they bargained for."

Upon review, the function of the court is supervisory in nature. Milwaukee Prof'l Firefighters, Local 215 v. City of Milwaukee, 78 Wis. 2d 1, 22, 253 N.W.2d 481 (1977). It is merely to insure that the parties have received the arbitration that they bargained for.

However, Power's attack is not designed to challenge an issue that has a practical effect on any existing controversy. SeeMilwaukee Prof.Firefighters v. Milwaukee, 78 Wis.2d 1, 10, 253 N.W.2d 481, 486 (1977). Instead, Power attempts to attack the arbitration award of attorney fees.

Milwaukee Police Asso. v. Milwaukee, 92 Wis.2d 175, 183, 285 N.W.2d 133, 137 (1979). As a general rule, moot issues will not be considered. Milwaukee Professional Firefighters Local 215 v. Milwaukee, 78 Wis.2d 1, 15, 253 N.W.2d 481, 488 (1977). We conclude this action may be maintained whether or not claims are outstanding.

See Morceau v. Gould-Natl. Batteries, Inc., 344 Mass. 120, 121-127 (1962); Greene v. Mari Sons Flooring Co., 362 Mass. 560, 563 (1972); Cape Cod Gas Co. v. United Steelworkers, Local 13507, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 265 (1975). Compare Milwaukee Professional Firefighters, Local215 v. Milwaukee, 78 Wis.2d 1, 15-17 (1977). 2.

He may of course look for guidance from many sources, yet his award is legitimate only so long as it draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement." United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 597 (1960), quoted in Milwaukee Firefighters Local 215 v. Milwaukee, 78 Wis.2d 1, 21, 253 N.W.2d 481. "Judicial review of arbitration awards is very limited.

“Judicial review of arbitration awards is very limited.” Milwaukee Prof'l Firefighters, Local 215, IAFF, AFL–CIO v. City of Milwaukee, 78 Wis.2d 1, 21, 253 N.W.2d 481 (1977). The legislature has recognized, however, that not all disputes can be resolved without court intervention.

In Lukowski, the court had declared that “[a]n arbitrator obtains authority only from the contract of the parties and therefore is confined to the interpretation of that contract.” Lukowski, 184 Wis.2d at 152, 515 N.W.2d 883;see also Nicolet High Sch. Dist. v. Nicolet Educ. Ass'n, 118 Wis.2d 707, 714, 348 N.W.2d 175 (1984); Milwaukee Prof'l Firefighters, Local 215 v. City of Milwaukee, 78 Wis.2d 1, 21, 253 N.W.2d 481 (1977). Thus, the certified question posited an option that this court had rejected repeatedly.

While parties to arbitration may submit additional issues to arbitrators to decide, the parties did not ask the panel to determine the effect of the reducing clause on the limits of liability in Orlowski's policy in this case. See Milwaukee Prof'l Firefighters, Local 215, IAFF, AFL–CIO v. City of Milwaukee, 78 Wis.2d 1, 16, 253 N.W.2d 481 (1977). Therefore, because we review the decision of the arbitration panel, which was not asked to go beyond the scope of the questions submitted to determine the limits of Orlowski's policy, we do not address the effect of the reducing clause any further.