had sought confirmation of an arbitration award the employer in return had sought to have that award bake aided the lower court decided to vacate the award that's why we're here on appeal we believe that ruling was clearly that the courts will will they have poor interfering with an arbitration award and only in the most extraordinary circumstance will they do so so for the michigan family resources reasons you it's broad arbitration clause and when you have that kind of clause the presumption is the presumption is in favor of our ability to get to the to the to the facts and i think this will this will help  in december of two thousand and eleven the union files agreements now it's critical to focus on what the grievance was about this is critical the union filed a grievance saying that the master agreement was violated by failing to pay the required contributions to jointly administered pension and well for welfare plans that are governed by the employer retirement security act of one thousand nine hundred four now at the time of the grievance the union and the employer in this particular case are signed two contracts there's the master master agreements are are pretty common you see him a lot the teamsters world with the national master freight with u b s you also see them in the long world in this particular case the master agreement covered the great lakes region the great lakes area and the reason for the master anybody wanted to sign on and midwest this particular employer chose to sign onto it and what it does is it sets a uniform standard to give a level playing field for the employers along their great lakes so they all know hey we're paying a certain wage wage amount we're paying for and benefits we know our competitors here in toledo ohio are paying the same thing now sure there are unique issues that are specific to particular geographic locales and those are specifically dealt with in the local agreements but  this is critical and for some reason your honour's that the lower court i don't even think mentioned it in the decision there's a supremacy clause in the master contract and i can read it for you but it's in section two right under i believe it's a recognition as the master agreement is supreme the master agreement to the extent it defines the terms and conditions those terms and conditions will will control it it goes on this talk about the the local working agreements and those are that that's in it's common sense that agreement is different is intended to supplement or fill in gaps certain operational issues but that's it but the core terms are defined by the master agreement the and that's in that's in the contract that's in the master contract that the bargaining parties agreed to and to do to go in to go into this little little more detail and this particular point the master agreement specifically there's no question expressly defines the required wage rates for the longshoreman and it also expressed lead to fines and states that contributions i think at this point time was fourteen dollars and thirty five cents per hour in total must be made to a risk benefit plans pension and health and welfare what it what it goes on to say is the allocation of their contribution the fourteen thirty five that's decided by the local parties they can decide hey ten bucks of that goes to the pension the rest of it goes to health and welfare if anybody is familiar with the time benefit plans these days they need all the money they can get under p p i but anyway the less we digressed deemed to be a grievance here under after name dramatic be subject to the settlement arbitration procedures provided for under this section twenty one but be resolved under the grievance arbitration procedures provided under such a local agreement and now what happened was the the resolution was on the local agreement right no kno and you hit you hit the nail on the head there are two clauses in that in that arbitration provision of the master agreement the initial clause states that grievances that concern violation of the terms of the master agreement sh adjudicated here under under the master agreement grievance procedure let me repeat grievances that impact in the terms and conditions of the master agreement will be adjudicated under the master agreement in our particular case the the issue was whether the employer violated the master agreement section i think it's five point five five point five the master agreement expressly defines contributions having to be paid to these a risk of plant the union said hey you didn't pay contributions to receive plans we're filing this grievance under the master contract that's a defined court's term under the master contract ok what the judge what the lower court said was yeah but in the grievance the the people at the time they for some reason reference eighteen point one to local contracts and then you know it must mean that both contracts are implicated and therefore the provision that you just read would say that that has to be decided under local agreement that that's that's incorrect that's erroneous and the reason why is eighteen point one of the local agreements it clearly says in that contract as well that the level of contributions is dictated by the master agreement there's expressed language an eighteen point one that says that and so it kick it back to the master contract even if you look at eighteen want it but at a minimum the arbitrator here what did all this mess and made the judgment that he could decided under the master agree the panel but the panel here made the data you know that they might have gone the other way they might have disagreed with the argument that you just made but they had the opportunity of both of them before you know and you know that that's exactly the point is you don't have to convince us that you're right you just have to convince us that they were off the moon exactly i mean the fact of the matter is here there are there can there can be no argument that section five point five of the master contract was specifically implicated by the  says in the master contract or low local agreement also implicated no the local government can't be implicated because the core terms and conditions are you made it could be they can't become a limit let me  explain i mean you can't because of the supremacy clause it's section two of the of the master contract it says that to the extent the terms and conditions are defined in the master that's what controls so the local agreement can say whatever it wants but it's not going to supersede it's going to be trumped by the master contract the master contract is five point five defines you have to pay fourteen thirty five to receive benefit plans end of story the loop agreement can say whatever  master agreement it specifically says the contributions have to be paid to a risk of benefit plans trust funds that are governed by a risk of that or formulated actively taft hartly plans to the extent we're familiar with that concept that's what the master right or wrong to be arbitrated and let the idler come in there at the at the at the arbitration and say busdriver trader we made all the contributions and this is you know everything we did was right you know god bless them that they can make all those arguments but they can't get around the fact that it's a master contract by elation and hat and that the grievance procedure in our master the panel headed the absolute authority to decide this case they didn't go out on a limb they didn't go outside their authority they they were acting clearly within their i ask you this in some of the correspondence back and forth midwest keep saying that the union's grievance is being is currently being processed via the local grievance procedure and is in arbitration is that accurate or is there any reason any basis for that whatsoever of the grievance of the group the union was was adamant from day one this is a master contract don't tell me what the union's position was tell me is and i'll ask your adversary is there any basis for that statement as there is no basis there are some local arbitration of any sort that out of this merging into of this case absolutely not but there are no competing we've addressed it thoroughly and fully but i also want to say there is case law as well of the failure to exhaust and we've cited some case in the briefs i'm not going to belabor it but you know the decision came up by the panel ok that was i think in the grievance procedure if the employer didn't like the decision or they wanted to come to contest it they could have gone to step three which was an expanded panel and then i think step four was in even a neutral arbitrator employer had noticed  was a problem they had and if you if you read through the papers you know which i know you did you know the there were there was so much correspondence to the employer given a second chance you know where you we have this information do you want to respond and giving u rebuttal please the court my name is ronald mason i represent midwest terminals in this matter let me first of all point out to you that midwest has never disputed the fact that this particular grievance that was filed on december the ninth was to a grievance an arbitration procedure the only question is which one in this particular case the grievance that was filed was a local grievance on the nineteen eighty two grievance form it is the four of that is used every day by the union and when they file grievances they firelit on this form under the local agreement it was a local agreement grievance and form it was submitted to the company during negotiations for able local agreement with the description of the great what does the description of the green form it's it gives the heading and it says local nine hundred eighty two on it now i understand that we're asking that there's not another form for the master agreement i have no idea ma'am because we've never had a grievance that was been filed under the master agreement the only grievances that we've ever had have been local grievances of this it was as one so this is the only form this is the only form that a company has seen agreement yes sir and then if you look further it describes the provisions and says that has been violated the contract sections and it says the master agreement section and the local agreement section make specific reference to the local agreement and here we have not only the grievance form that was used but the company processed it under the local grievance it went and denied it under the local grievance and the procedure and the language that's in dispute has been this collective bargaining agreement since one thousand nine hundred ninety three the company signed a a long term agreement in two thousand and six that contained the same language in the local agreement subsequently the master agreement came on and changed to language in the master agreement but the master agreement has a situation where when you start out you have to understand that under traditional labor law an arbitration when you go to an arbitrator an impartial arbitrator one of the fundamental tenets of arbitration law is you cannot get in arbitration what you cannot get ations then is that if you try to negotiate something and you do not get it you can't go to arbitration and get it there was your client signatory to the master agreement if she he was signatory to the yes in the sense of that yes he had made a promise that he would put into jointly trustee taft hartly benefit plan he had made the agreement that the trust fund would be there under the master agreement but it was also governed by the local agreement and its terms under the local agreement then oh well i guess the issue is that the grievance was a violation of the master of agreements specification that there would be kindness into a risk to qualified in plans and that the description of the grievance is i'm struggling to understand why you would think that doesn't arise under the master agreement because it is the master that in fact establishes the obligation it is the master agreement that is is there that was disputed with respect to local agreement as to which governed under these terms and the local agreement is m's struggling to understand what you mean by that because the master agreement establishes the obligation now understand that the local agreeing that gives the local in to tease the ability to make some decisions about have to allocate the money among established plans but it is the master that obligates the creation and the payment into those arista plans so help me understand why this is not a complaint under the minister because it requires an interpretation of the local language the master agreement specifically in the grievance in arbitration procedure as judge merit pointed out specifically says that any and it says any grievance that is involves the application interpretation of a local language and again ma'am if i may if it's a very very specific only required to arbitrate what we have agreed to arbitrate q are signatory to the master agreement and gives and is should in any difference or dispute arise relating to the meaning or interpretation or application of any of the provisions of this master agreement you use our grievance procedure so you signatory to bat and that's the introductory clause if you go further down in that language it's pacifically sadness that the master contract specifically excludes in the grievance language from the grievance the meanings interpretations or applications of local agreements are not this is trade agreements under the master agree money five a one yes or ok so in one sense though wasn't your remedy to say in the in this grievance willow betrayed anything about the master agreement but you should exclude anything about the local agreement but then that could have been thrashed out but the local agreement your i but the master agreement it we're talking about is the interpretation and the application of the mind which in the local agreement that says that it's an unfunded liability that's what you say that's what you say it is that there is they have something different and it would seem that that if you had a point would have been the point that should have been raise but let  this though the same question ask your adversary where your some of your documentation says oh this is all being handled in local grievance arbitration and what is the basis of this because as i understood it they filed on december ninth you provided a response on december twelfth and by december nineteenth there's this email from flag saying they have filed a grievance with the g l d c i assume that means they took your response and in their view took it up through the master levels is that correct well we don't know what mit what we do know is that they filed it locally we responded locally they then said that they are going to process it under the master agreements procedure query passing the question of what's written on the top of the form if it was a master agreement grievance would they not have given it to you in exactly the same way in other words was there some other mailbox to send it to if you look at the  affidavit of christopher blakely he lists a grievance after grievance after grievance after grievance where language is referenced in both the master and the local i'm asking your over the employer would have received some sort of a grievance that would have become from cleveland where they they run the office that would have been on some sort of a master form to say never but he has never seen a grievance t if you were the union mister smart about labor laws you are where would you file such an agreements don't you file it with the employer it starts elop being between us and we have never received i know you've never said yes you've never seen one that you recognized as such but they didn't do something wrong by filing this with you did they say we haven't received it we received the local green you receive this piece of paper so we agree with that this or that whether you call it local or master they sent it to the right place yes or i'm not to look it up that's that's all we're not just all out but now why oh why did you say in all of these documents that this was being processed to arbitration at the local through the local process but again i said included or you collectively maybe i'm united you mercilessly blakely's non attorney i think he was simply making a reference to the fact that we have a grievance in arbitration procedure and we would be processing this through and he was asking for their response under that local agreement to that very thing that makes arbitration exclusive under the master agreement or under the local agreement in the sense that are there some things because of this specific exclusionary language the language the case law is replete that where you have a grievance procedure and it has a specific exclusion in it that you do not go with the broad grievance language because you have a specific exclusion so that if you have a situation i mean when you have an agreement like these that in our law but unclearly seems to me  i mean is it ought to be a lot clearer than it is so you've got you've got a situation here where the parties have made it where there is ambiguity well i can't you file under either but you are when you are sitting in saying that the specific contract language in the local contract is in qur'an act it doesn't seem that there ambiguity there that's a judge tell me clearly sent this language is pacifically excluding interpretations and applications of the local green and i you write that argument  agreement panel i believe the argument was made by mr blakeley he has you have the course i did not write it no i did i would not even employed by no one no one appeared before the panel gilwell actually judge helmick said that there was numerous correspondence from the company challenging the ability of them and whether i mean technically it's not an arbitrator in his a second step grievance in a panel and the situation was such that what happened was that in twenty thirteen the union realizing that if we go to arbitration on this and we just tried to get the local agreement to change and they failed the i'm not asking you that question i'm asking you with her under our existing case law and the michigan family whether there was a challenge that coming before the arbitrator because what you have is you have a panel properly constituted created under the master agreement presented with a grievance under the master agreement and so you have this putative jurisdiction to hear this and so my question to you is did anyone from midwest go today at or inform that arbitrator that there was a question regarding the panel's ability to hear that grievance i believe ma'am if you look at the correspondence from the company to the to the union as well as to what i'm asking i'm asking if you challenge the for the arbitrator what i see  all these documents were numbers of letters from one of the panel members asking me at west actually begging me of west to a pm forward and appear after that time had run to make your arguments by letter or correspondence to may i will hear them delaying receipt of it and yet never having a challenge what what under our case law would then call into question the ability of that panel to make a final and binding arbiter of this was as judge helming pointed out that there were several correspondence to the union as well as to believe mr fisk advising him that the grievance that was being held was not properly before the master agreement that it was a look at them for me is you can write your opposing counsel as much as you want of that what you think but if you don't tell us then you've not brought it to the but that is the but see that's where that there's a difference without a distinction if you are the arbitrator on the panel the it is not a judge is not an f m c as appointed arbitrator that your corresponding to your corresponding to the decision makers when you're writing the letters because it's a step two it's the local it's being heard by one of the members there mr fyshe ok i thought it was flag  deny whether i'm right that flag in sierra are the panel you are i will confirm that it's it was flooded in sierra that's absolutely correct i did as far as rebuttal and i'm just going to make a few a few points  the one is the point was a bar brought up about that the the argument is that the this grievance was somehow excluded and that is fundamentally fundamentally fundamentally incorrect the the law in the sixth circuit is very clear and we have two two thousand and ten case of i am local nine hundred forty three for sake a steal and what what their case holds for what the circuit holds is that with bro arbitration clauses and there's no question we have a very broad arbitration clause here as you have you pointed out there is a presumption of arbiter ability and only an express exclusion of an will keep it from the arbitrator so let's turn that to our facts the issue we have is whether contributions were made to a risk benefit plans that language is specifically included within the master contract so it's not excluded it's actually included in it that is a material term of the of the master contract so then the master contract under the machinery says that if there is a dispute over the interpretation of that particular clause it is subject to the master agreement arbitration clause to me and i think based on the case law  there is no lack of clarity here this case fits squarely before the panel that decided it they acted reasonably they acted appropriately and the decision should be to be conferred upon arbitrate under either agreement right i don't i don't i don't believe that i think that since it's a master contract it's a master contract issue the clause says master contract issues are arbitrated under the following procedure and it talks about if you had gone through the local procedure in one you'd probably be saying that it could be under either i'm not going to i'm not going to determine or of whether that panel or that individual has the ability to he it is meant by that panel or that arbitrator carette so that's what we're talking about here whether under michigan i am like that arbitron panel they are correct and whether that had the authority to to rule on the case based on the arbitration clause which it clearly did we did there was an aberration here was not an aberration as defined in michigan family all of the three tests have been met here manhattan right though that presumably the argument could have been made clearly to the master panel arbitrators look you can arbitrate anything about the baster agreement but  arbitrate anything about the local agreement throw out that and you could argue that that would throw out everything but then you would get an answer to that clear question is that fair that is it that is very fair you could i would i would say bifurcate you could attempt to bifurcate that portion if there is an argument that there is some local provision implicated the employer certainly could have made that argument to the master panel said bifurcated take that out you have no jurisdiction wasn't done here thank you cou