language is is there very much in your favor arbitrator's decision to extend is based on findings of fact even implied is pretty much beyond our reach and not much  is there any suggestion i will hear from the other side as well so i'm as candid as you can be that there was a frak implied fact finding by the arbitrator that the signing date indicates an age the only indication of when the company agreed into paragraph whatever it is at the beginning of the agreement says that becomes effect upon agreement of the company and  something presented to him and his or any of that whatever is presented to the arbitrator was any effort by the union to say that it wasn't agreed to by the company until the signature date or terms in the agreement as at the peak period that immediate we began after ratification let me ask you about the document itself is there evidence of when this document with these dates on it by way nineteen or whatever it the similar date the following year when was that appear i'm trying to see if the very fact of the existence of the agreement presented to the arbitrator showed that southwest had agreed to it parties can agree to new terms and so in practice the parties leave most of the agreement in place of amendments to the previous agreement and so what the my understanding is that the document actually comes together changes could be me without a new written agreement from both sides and that's it page six hundred forty and so what was the point of having the execution page because this is clearly not you don't need fifteen people to sign this agreement for it to take effect but there's a lot of ceremony in the bargain i guess my concern is when you know the standard well as long as the arbitrator's decision  comes from the essence of the contract we have to uphold it we can vacate it or should vacate it if he is sort of picking out of the air his own sense of what's right and what the just result is and here i mean whether it's right or wrong he does point to the contract and saying there's this execution page with the march dade and that's what i'm going to rely on so why even if that were wrong if that's wrong isn't it coming from the contract as opposed to pulling something out of the was the date of ratification through february eighteenth twenty twenty one so everyone's focused in the breeze on your argument on that the effective date of the contract i understand that's because the arbitrator sets it up that way but if you look at the actual ten day deadline which is ultimately what's at issue the contract says provided such appeal is presented within ten working days after receipt of the station managers decision frequently asked questions kind of page to the union to be circulated to its membership explaining the terms of that some of the key terms especially from the members point of view of the new tentative agreement and that was prepared in january to the unions members for ratification would make no sense for the union to hold a vote amongst its entire membership on terms that don't yet have the company's acceptance but going back to just south it's a question about whether under the stairs of review the court can infer what is not needed express and the arbitrator's decision namely that maybe the company didn't accept the terms of the agreement until signature i think granting relief to the union members was whether there was a causal connection between an increase in sub contracting by the company and furloughs of the union employees and the court didn't ask well can we know would have had a good case under a longstanding supreme court case law but that was an unfair labor practice and it could have brought the suit against us and that was the under the rationale that the eleventh circuit  parties because on that theory ratification by the union is at most a counteroffer to the company to become the company and then it's up to reject but that goes against the state's law that i mentioned going back to the heinz decision by the circumstances signing is nothing more than ministerial and we submit that that is exactly the situation here as well i think article twenty nine speaks for itself but another piece of evidence that i the time period for any possible violation when that when the agreement goes into a fact i don't maybe from the standpoint that there was an issue of race judicata and whether that could be ready to that's not raised here today it was raised in the lower court but it's not and when and so that is a necessary component of you ever having in success in this matter and if we do we mandate for further proceedings an arbitrator and we don't we hold that wasn't unduly of wasn't delay if doesn't just say as clearly as it can be said that this agreement says remains but nonetheless as of the date of ratification and we know what that  proposition that mccain ignore plain language of the agreement and so you need an ambiguity is it enough just that he found something in the agreement that has to be something that in fact could be a basis to rest no matter how compelling or not compelling t decision it's not just enough for him to say saying which page has card agreement you can't touch my decision would you agree with that that we must find and we guilty or something that would allow his decision whether we agree with it or state so is there any evidence presented to the arbitrator that gave significance to the signature page is this potentially a fact finding based on some evidence we have evidence and i was asking what was presented to him was anything in the record before the arbitrator that could have been a fracture or basis to give significance to that date of march or whatever it is yes i believe that only supposed to look at the results by that o things offered probably unwillingly on the other side as a as something for the court to consider this sinew is back to the arbitrator of what's the most the law on that why is that in your view no doubt inappropriate actions will for the merits but i'm talking about on this what's been resolved so far just for a better explanation of what in the world was he lying on to reach this decision for a better explanation of what he was relying on to reach the decision that he did he's ok you got me why doesn't that make any sense to do it here what i'm asking though is anything inappropriate under the arbitration seeders of the railway labor act on the case law of that act i guess not there and article twenty makes clear that the arbitrator has no power to change add to or delete the agreements terms and base the contract law i hate to contradict my colleague on the other side the basic contract  govern the formation of collective bargaining agreements that is a matter of federal law but mack trucks case that we say from the third circuit says this expressly that contract formality doctrines do not apply to the formation of collective bargaining agreements and we believe that's consistent with this court's decision in savannah as well but to the extent you were to look at basic contract law here it would strongly favor not interpreting article three produced a contradiction with article twenty nine which is what the union's position would require setting aside the fact that it would also produce a contradiction with that brown federal labor law and that is why we think it is a radical interpretation of record he was asked about article three specifically so this provision of the c v a says that it will be binding on all parties when it is ratified by membership of the union correct answer that's what it says and that is the prize as the suggests acceptance by the company invariably predates ratification by the union and we submit that that's what happened here one comment about the essence of the agreement standard of review and the notion that only a complete disregard of the c d a justifies of a critter we think that that court's decisions in cases like baird and continental airlines versus teamsters the two thousand and four continental this agreement are of great importance to both sides in the relationship and they are often raised as a defense or as a reason to reject a grievance at the threshold stage in article twenty section one paragraph he says determination of time frame issues if i may just complete that determination of time frame violation issue shall take precedence over consideration of any other issue we would ask the court to reverse the district