Sharlene Ono (“Ono”), together with United Food and Commercial Workers Local Union 905 (“Union”), appeals a district court order that vacated an arbitration award in their favor. The only issue on appeal is whether the district court erred when it vacated the arbitration award. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reverse.

Ono was employed by New Meiji Market (“New Meiji”). In November 1983, New Meiji fired Ono for cash register discrepancies. In response, Ono and the Union filed a grievance petition and submitted the matter to arbitration.

The arbitrator found that New Meiji had violated the collective bargaining agreement when it terminated Ono without good cause. She was ordered reinstated with full benefits and seniority, and was awarded back wages.

On February 22, 1985, New Meiji filed in the district court a Petition to Vacate the Arbitration Award. On March 28, 1985, the Union filed a Counterclaim to Confirm the Award Made Pursuant to Arbitration. Each side then moved for summary judgment. On May 15, 1985, the district court granted summary judgment to New Meiji and vacated the arbitration award.

We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment confirming or vacating an arbitration award. See Frederick Meiswinkel, Inc. v. Laborer’s Union Local 261, 744 F.2d 1374 , 1376 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 1394 , 84 L.Ed.2d 783 (1985).

A district court’s review of an arbitrator’s award is more limited, however. Unless the arbitral decision fails to “draw[s] its essence from the collective bargaining agreement,” United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 597 , 80 S.Ct. 1358, 1361 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1424 (1960), the district court is bound to enforce the award and is not entitled to review the merits of the contract dispute. See Id. at 598-99 , 80 S.Ct. at 1361-62 . This circuit has held that, in determining whether an arbitrator’s award draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement, the district court must accord considerable deference to the arbitrator’s judgment. See Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local Union No. 420 v. Kinney Air Conditioning Co., 756 F.2d 742, 744 (9th Cir.1985); Holly Sugar Corp. v. Distillery, Rectifying, Wine & Allied Workers International Union, 412 F.2d 899, 903 (9th Cir.1969).

The parties submitted the following issues to the arbitrator:

In rendering his decision, the arbitrator considered a key provision in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Article 111(A) of the Agreement provides, in relevant part:

(Emphasis added.)

After considering the facts in light of this contractual provision, the arbitrator found that New Meiji had violated the collective bargaining agreement by terminating Ono without good cause. Specifically, the arbitrator found that New Meiji had discriminated against Ono by imposing upon her more severe discipline than it had imposed on other employees whom New Meiji had charged with the same conduct. The arbitrator made the following award:

In support of the district court’s order to vacate, New Meiji advances two arguments. First, it contends that Article 111(A)(2) vests New Meiji with the unfettered right to discharge employees who commit cash register irregularities. New Meiji interprets this clause to mean that once the arbitrator determined that a cash register discrepancy occurred, this finding alone constituted good cause to terminate.

The Union advances a different interpretation. They read the clause to mean that, in addition to the mere showing that a cash register discrepancy occurred, proven irregularities still must be serious enough to constitute good cause. The Union supports this contention by focusing on the word “must” in the phrase, “but such alleged irregularities must constitute good cause____” Since must was used instead of shall, the Union believes that in addition to the preliminary finding that a transgression occurred, the clause also required that the discrepancy be evaluated to determine its severity. The arbitrator agreed with the Union’s interpretation of the contract.

Although there is some basis for the construction advanced by New Meiji, the Union’s interpretation is the more reasonable interpretation. To use an extreme example, New Meiji is arguing that the clause permits it to discharge an employee for a single discrepancy as de minimis as a penny. To interpret the clause as bestowing upon management such an unfettered right to terminate is unreasonable. The question of interpretation is a question for the arbitrator, and since the arbitrator’s interpretation draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement, the arbitrator’s interpretation must be accorded considerable deference. The district court should not have vacated the award because it interpreted the agreement differently. See Enterprise Wheel & Car, 363 U.S. at 599 , 80 S.Ct. at 1362 ; International Association of Machinists Local Lodge No. 389 v. San Diego Marine, 620 F.2d 736, 739 (9th Cir.1980).

New Meiji’s second argument, which represents another ground utilized by the district court in support of its order, is the contention that the award was ambiguous and contradictory, in that the arbitrator acknowledged that New Meiji may have the right to discipline, yet he completely stripped New Meiji of that right. New Meiji argues that no discipline was imposed by the arbitrator, yet he acknowledged that perhaps some discipline was appropriate.

This argument is meritless as well. The parties submitted the issue of discipline to the arbitrator. He determined that discharge was too severe, and although he acknowledged “that perhaps some discipline was appropriate,” he decided not to impose discipline. We see nothing ambiguous in his decision. The use of the word “perhaps” in the above quote indicates that the arbitrator perhaps would find no discipline at all equally appropriate. Possibly the arbitrator believed that no discipline had been imposed on others for similar incidents and thus was inappropriate here. Even if a slight ambiguity does exist, the Supreme Court has indicated that minor ambiguities are not a basis for denying enforcement of an arbitration award. See Enterprise Wheel & Car, 363 U.S. at 598 , 80 S.Ct. at 1361 .

REVERSED.