they've not been advised of the decision maker the decision making process the reasons what's their theory as to why they should be that the government promised to pay them release by the river regional administrative garri in march and april they notified them that we're extending the terms of that agreement to everybody marketing unit and non bargaining unit i believe then it became binding why because they'd already worked they'd already earned the money they say they paid they were the same as the other people i paid same thing they all worked in two thousand and two and two thousand four and if you're seeing their new work in two thousand to two thousand and four for the united states of america and then it comes to you and says we were wrong we made a mistake by not paying you now you need to be paid i think that's binding i mean that's that's what an employee does that's what the government does that's what the beginning of paragraph of their personnel management system says they are an equal and equal and fair treatment for treatment present a contract i mean  four then they came and he said everybody should have been paid the minute that they said everybody should have been paid then somehow twenty people don't get paid probably ever she comes out and says we realize that we did not take care of the managers and staff people in these busy facilities are trying to get all that revenue troll and she says to correct this we and they call these people up they say that you get paid just the same as everybody else then two months later the manager of the facility because i don't know why you're not getting paid now understand what a joke i mean you said about it was because they were retired well keep in mind you had been bargaining units employees that were fired terminated for cause and not working at the time all got paid because they worked in two thousand two thousand and four at the time this promise was made or all these people retire no they were working their work when they retire well  it was used later but just twenty people had over thirty years average with the government they were their senior managers and they started returning i would say in the two thousand liked it to cover you here so we the agency are covering you who mellow on buried so these people work in them and i first came on and some of them said we got this was totally different we don't know what we were covered but then the problem is not only that but when you turn around and say we've not we're not going to pay you they don't tell them direct any  because if they did they know to probably have a different type case against them they didn't tell him at all and so they had no way nor anything no way no ground and the way the government works this is built into the government i'm sorry but i just feel very strongly about that i think that these people are right and they are they really should have had something to be able to go ahead and find a place to take their case and that's where we are here now and what happens now if this is the right i see the end of the rope if they can't get back into the system for someone to listen to the merits of this thing just someone and maybe knock them out maybe then commence saying we had a ballot a reason a valid reason was it was a money thing on them you decide whether you go after them or not or we had this or we had that when they turn around and take people with thirty close years working and they won't tell them why then they come out and said we have no records of why the decision was made we don't know who made it and said it was all done orally no records now to let them slip through the under that terms just it's rewarding an agency and which is a terrible precedent and i think for future government  what agency you're him to get a notice who the decision maker was and what your appeal rights with the image p b r that's a requirement of the got all government agencies so if the agency  same back pay that we're giving to the collective bargaining unit employees for their trade a contract and no your honor that with no you know lateral really you say if you continue to potentially be a contract but in this case your honor these plaintiffs were retired by the time that the decision to pay on what they were retired when the promise was made right which promise your honor the promise to to treat in the same way as employees they were not retired when the one nine hundred ninety eight letter was issued that said we are extending the collective bargaining agreement to all of the supervisors and other managers that they were retired when the settlement agreement was extended to all of the current managers so if they were currently employed and the government said to them you continue to work will make you treat you the same way as the c b you employees  they were told that they would be paid at the same as the as the f a a transferred from the g s system to the p m s system which does cover supervisors and managers the collective bargaining unit and the a made an agreement that determined levels of pay based on air traffic at certain facilities and when they made that agreement the f a a did say that we would extend that agreement to the managers and supervisors and we will also determine the level of pay based on the air the level the amount of air traffic so the one thousand nine hundred eight agreement said they would be paid the same but it did not extend all future agreements that the bargaining unit may have come to with right and that is correct they did bring a contact claim in their first complaint and they dropped it when we filed a motion to dismiss and they amended it to say that the p m s or the money mandating accu and they proceeded on that claim but i would agree with your honor that it does seem as though they are bringing in a breach of contract claim and that it's not valid in a court of federal claims because a they didn't have a contract and b there's jurisdiction explicitly in other forums i'm not sure you're right abo say they completely ignored the personnel management procedures that way played they didn't try to go to m s p and instead they tried to shoehorn themselves into a settlement agreement between the collective bargaining unit and the f a a which  entitled to any pay and they were not appointed and they would have to get a retroactive motion in order to be entitled to the pay from two thousand and two to two thousand and four they haven't and that they have no claim for presently due money because we had no information was primarily the reason that we were changing but when we probably would be changing today i don't think so but it's awful hard when nobody would tell you are either doing a thing now the problem we have agreements it was a commitment by the administrator saying we will cover all that awards and procedures and treat you the same way that it would take to secular administrators to change that and that was never changed that's the point about that when they say that oh no that didn't apply to just but that agreement you were talking about a knack agreement over disappear over discreet disagreement she was these other people so two years later she came out said to be fair the new system will take care of these new people from now on she wasn't talking about an agreement which you people sat down it was an f a a commitment not an agreement the next thing is one else who says that she doesn't know where we're what we're going on and paragraph nine area in the park personnel management system is quite clear it says any settlement under says this is wrong we're going to pay them they don't have to be promoted they don't have to be appointed they already worked and you have a say and you work the ready so we're going to pay you so the letter argument doesn't go at they didn't have to be they were affected by something and an official of the f a a in ninety eight said we were wrong we're going to pay these people that was enough for them right there they were acting in the p