complaint at the pleadings based on the conclusion that it was being asked to issue an invalid's or your opinion and that there was no actual case or controversy what we contained is that conclusion is based on a clear misreading of the complaint and advisory opinion cases one in which the parties asked the court to tell them what will be the future or the legal consequences if they engage in some hypothetical future course of action if x occurs what are the legal consequences and in an actual justice civil case however the equitable relief or even declared really but but the case says x has occurred and what are the what are the consequences of that and we contend that we fall squarely into the latter category who has alleged that he and the union are parties to a collective bargaining agreement if not actual collective bargaining agreement this agreement obligates by all the to pay the wages of a full time union shop chairperson this individual does not perform any work for baldo he performs only on behalf of the union he acts under their direction and control the ball so these are a no going obligation that has already occurred this is not future conduct it's past kind of mr roberts you say it's an ongoing obligation i want to it looks to me if i'm reading things right that the cfi be a expires in a couple weeks later this month and back i guess starting in october the the renegotiation began what what is the status and there is a case about something that's expiring and then it's december th where you had the question the possible motive is that not plan to address that i'll grant that right now in light of your don't know how it's going to turn out if in theory been theory the parties were to agree on some language that revised and that they agree is legal then obviously this case would become moot because cases that are pending in the th circuit from maryland and virginia and there were negotiations last fall in maryland that resulted in the party being unable to resolve the agreement and basically continuing the possibilities one the new c b a doesn't have this language that you think gives rise to a legal obligation and then it would seemingly be moot i think you recognize that the other possibility is this new contract continues the same  includes the same provision that you now say is a week also then it brings up a lot of these issues the district i mean how can you go to federal court complain that you know now that you think this is a week i mean maybe when this contract that breast that equitable is the weather and employer by virtue of having in essence participated in the or had standing if you will present the case and found that it did so we would argue i'd like to point out a couple  practical considerations because this d is what happened in maryland is the contracts are a little bit different when we get let's say we get to december the th day and we don't have between the parties there's several things could happen one the parties could agree to continue the existing contract while they continue to negotiate to either party would have the right to terminate the contract labor contract even when it expires the legal obligations can then use as a matter of law as part of the status quo so we could not just unilaterally discontinue making the payments at that three year not always but typically a contract and so the litigation process is constantly having situations where you're you're in the midst of the negotiations and you don't have a resolution to your problem is a really strange case procedurally i mean can you point to a case where a party is asking the court not to enjoin the other side but to enjoin  and it and the court found that they were entitled ready to continue to pursue the case and that we're entitled to relief i would also point out your honor that we're not just asking that we be restriking we're union has threatened to sue or or is likely to have to stop making the payments well of course this is that the complaint stage your honor i mean and our complaint alleges that we declaratory really and yes we made some references to the fact that section three hundred and two was a criminal statute and that there can be d a potential criminal prosecution but this case is never about avoiding union and their bargaining rights belong to the union typically or you don't have standing  arm i don't know technically whether you could say the expiration of the agreement moots the case because i think a prerequisite for moving cases that is a live case to begin with and i think clearly mis read the complaint but the complaint the operative paragraph of the complaint is paragraph twelve which alleges that there's an actual controversy because the other two sides have different legal opinions well that happens a lot and you know when you have to have some hardship you can't just say i disagree with somebody please come in court and resolve but putting all that aside there there is there clearly is no hardship now if there ever was that would give  case or controversy if if the legal opinion of the company is now after even though they've done this for forty years and there they haven't cited any developments that would support their change of heart seems very strategic in order to gain leverage in the bargain but even assuming the good faith change of position they're under no the complaint at least in the as i read the briefs and maybe some paragraphs in the complaint was when we're under between a rock and a hard place now we if we if we engage in self help and we stop complying they can accuse us of an unfair labor practice we have to defend a killer galatea grounds that could mean a breach of contract now they are at the bargaining table over a new contract and though i'm sorry your honor it i think your mood if i join or your your meter if you want to say something to my back in yes very recently and that's under appeal to that was the nd of two cookie cutter lawsuits brought by robo alleging the exact same basically cookie cutter exact same allegations that was recently dismissed as well  there is not on the facts on the on this beautiful facts there's never been a prosecution on this even though it's a fairly common contractual procedure but now you say your injury is is the financial harm well you just  they both call that as long as you're in the range of arguable legality the parties have to be left to their own devices to be in the new the federal courts no the state courts can intervene now now mr roberts the union in the mac ace and as i'm about to point out here as well they say they don't agree that there's any legality issue with respect to full time but in an effort to get around this issue and to get off the issues the union maryland and recently here as well offer to move away from a full time arrangement to a part time arrangement it's a little more generous part time arrangement that the union has hour week union has proposed here as their initial proposal and then they have you know additional wiggle room there proposed just on monday when the party began to move from the forty hours for the shop chairperson the thirty two it on that ground of the union you know doesn't back down then there might be a controversy which which you know but this is all rank speculation regarding unfolding of events so i think it's fair game to point out that the unit showing flexibility in the parking table but how do how this is all going to unfold over the course of this bargaining whether it's going to fall the manner similar to what happened in maryland which led the court to say what are you doing you know you just basically agreeing to reopen and then you're saying you know you want to come to us for relief because you're saying that that raises a cloud over you have a reality the court was having none of that i think the court if that's the way they proceed i think insisting on something at the bargaining table they have all their rights but that's speculative at this point i would add just you know to square the circle on that point that if the union were  them would be to go to the national labor relations board and say they were insisting on an illegal subject and the board could would have remedies including and jump to remedy under section of the national labor relations act if there were any basis for claim like that which again we think they're clearly wounded but so that the cases are once almost both moot and premature in the case that the situation and whether or not you know the parties reach an agreement whether or not there is some further litigation by volo if they're at loggerheads in the matter i suggest that they might end up being the union certainly you know exist to avoid that which is one of the reasons they were to move off the forty that they they now all of a sudden are claiming is weak so i think i think they were the bottom line from our perspective as the decision below should be affirmed on the grounds and then the courts would say to the  extent that you know there's something that happens in the bargaining that you feel you know supports a legal claim you could bring that in the appropriate forum we believe that would be the appropriate forum would be the national labor relations board we don't believe the appropriate form will be another district court case because if they were trying to seek an injunction not from the board but from from the court relief under the statute is the attorney general because it's a criminal statute and it's really within the realm of the answer in general not a private party who as i think this case illustrates can can try to use that statute to gain a leg up in the wording table where the attorney general presumably would be neutral here he or she saw a violation of the statute could could could bring an action for injunctive relief if they felt that union was so if they would have to remedy the actually got to be a star general for you know get them to seek an j i think that's pretty much all i have to say unless the quest question i do want to just go jump in to address judge will it's a question because you asked my opposing counsel whether he could cite you to a case where a party and and  it strikes me as bizarre and space for a party to go in saying iran has we are violating the law our attorney says but you know even though we have been doing this for forty years our attorney has advised us that this is a it could subject us the political to criminal prosecution please join us for violating the law rather than just saying our right well my attorney has advised me this is unlawful i'm going to stuff i'm not going to do it because i'm not a subject myself successfully or pain an injunction to stop it and it's too cute by half to say we're also seeking to enjoin the union there are two sides of the same coin i mean it's really just an end around the prescription if you will of joining yourself to say well i don't join us from making the payments joint and join the union from the passive active receiving them d that that is just another way of getting what would in effect because that's what they want is this is to be able to no conceivable way the court could craft injunctive relief i don't see how that creates the jurisdictional issue as for the n l r b has no jurisdiction over this case this this is a federal statute that if not part of the national labor relations act the board doesn't have any jurisdiction to construe this it's a federal statute and gives the district court's jurisdiction to restrain violations  unions argument appears to be as i as i understood it you can never have this case will never be right it's either always premature or it's always in the midst of bargaining or it's always after you've already agreed to it so in essence the party it would give the parties carte blanche to agree to an unlawful agreement and no one could ever challenge well actually in the bargaining context if the unions insisting on  really has no mania no less and less some criminal and less criminal complaint is brought by the attorney general there can never really be an injunction that's what usually happens of criminal statutes the the enforcing prosecutor has to do something i mean there's probably all kinds of stuff going on in houston right now the so legal until a prosecutor does something about it that's i guess what's unusual about the what's unusual about it is that that that it's not just restricted to a cr instructions the reasoning process is all right thanks to both sides but given the ongoing negotiations i want to ask you if if you their side thinks there's some development in the negotiations and we have not yet i opinion that you think might matter at all be significant let us know of course we'll figure out whether that has legal significance or not but if you think there is a development certainly if there's a new c b a reach that would be something i think we would at least want to know about and then you know we'll sort out whether it court is now in recess and that's counsel may be an exit as the zoom call thank you