understand that they would have coverage until age sixty and then that coverage wasn't back provided for a number of years following not only their retirement but also the closure of that mill so the company lived according to the terms without agreement for a well ok you didn't quite answer my question what respect to the the quote i just gave you is your is it your position that that portion is irrelevant or somehow we can look  and the question is is there a was part of the closure agreement term of the closure agreement or as a result of the act of employees language does that function and terminate everyone's benefits at the time of the end of that three months that that's  somehow that that was going to terminate the coverage at the time that's a question of contract interpretation there's facts out there one way or the other some of the practice was to continue on this coverage for those for a number of years following the subject to negotiat reservation language which you know we do we know exactly what that reservation language means we don't but we do know that there is an unambiguous grant of a benefit to age sixty five and we have reservation language that may have  fact that on these retirees for may not that is what we have a trier of fact determined and we have a lot of extrinsic evidence that is relevant in the collective bargaining context that should have been considered through this process representations of the probably right but those individual retire reason the position of listening to them management representative explaining what benefits there are we're not in a position where they could interpret this language in that way and certainly if there's an ambiguity there and if the company really did think that they ha that right they were on their obligation to say you will have this you can retire now you're taking this benefit now you can retire now we're going to provide up to sixty five if we feel like it which is really where what if you take the company's interpretation which is really an agreement itself and it seems to provide at least in some circumstances who are retiring coverage i'm looking at exhibits page two common question but i want to point you to the things that bother me about your position let me address judge graver your first concern and that is the language if i understand your concern correctly  the language same basis and applying to actives what does that mean and the fact that benefits can change and i think it was the fact that benefits can change on a well meant that was your primary concern well the way and separately it says you will be eligible all you can or you may or something like that are turning your benefits angouleme when active employees can on the same basis that they can but that seems to be a completely separate thought it seems like an absolute that you're going to be entitled to your benefits that were you know that the time of retirement and a sense i'd i hope this is the simple answer that worked but were that i'm understanding change dependents to change the deductibility to change co payment and saw that was also provided to the retires the retirees through the the years time a collective bargaining agreement came up the retirees those people who had already retired were also subject to any changes that were negotiated in the overall level of benefits and so on but you really the language that judge graver points to is your position and that gives adequate notice to the retirees and protects the company's interpretation as well that's it is certainly one of the factors that that demonstrates certainly the fact that overall benefits are subject to negotiation as one of the clear factors that shows that these benefits were not read them all together your honor same same benefits the same as benefits means again the retirees already retired were subject to changes negotiated in the c d a the reservation of rights made it to individuals who retire indicates that they're eligible for retiring medical coverage in accordance with the provisions of the benefit plan the benefit plan booklet in turn makes clear two things again as it is treatment and second which obviously is no longer applicable if in fact you no longer have active employees and i think the active employees stuck around for a few months as they were they were closing down the mill but but more importantly for purposes of the mill closure agreement you go to the reservation of rights language which is very clearly and unambiguously stated and mr gore suggested that some of these benefits extended beyond the closure and i asked him as you recall was there a particular event that triggered the term a nation of the retiree benefits in this case how would you answer it was cracked it was alternately a financial that ultimately this burden could no longer be carried by the company i don't think there's any contest between the parties on that point and the company after size and its rights under the reservation of rights to do that but i think to hearken back judge just in one to one of your questions and that is what your primary defense again you still have to read them all together because the first question is were there no threats as people were retiring obligation does require that that material terms not be misrepresented the question is whether or not not telling retirees as they were filling out their paperwork back in the days when nobody foresaw the closing whether or not that in fact constituted a material mr president haitian to remind people of the reservation of rights clause in the benefits of out even if they now does in the form that she gave to people refer them to their benefits provisions as i recall that for that cost she doesn't she i will certainly can see your honor that she does not telling any retiree that these benefits could be curtailed by the company on the other hand she does point out she does point out  the terms and conditions of the benefit provisions and judge judge haggerty concluded on that basis that there was no misrepresentation she was under no duty to spell out each and every term to these individuals upon retirement there's been no evidence in this case that anyone retiring acted to his or   scenario where an individual's benefits are being treated the same as actives those active benefits are not immutable they are subject to change there is no ambiguity in that one out of business shortly after the vocal was however the international upon getting notice of what simpson intended to do did ask for and had i think it was reservation of rights clause i think it's important to point out there's not require agreement it requires negotiation and i think that the quote can certainly look at normal labor law principles and what bargaining and no i don't think there is any any a fact of the course of the meetings that the parties had in two thousand and two on on whether or not that that is pretty have to clim i went back and forth in the minutes of the meeting where the company said we have a right to do this we're glad to explain why we have a right but we have a right to do this we can change whatever we want i'm paraphrasing but i think that's the result of those letters back and forth of the closure no one was thinking that there weren't going to be retiring benefits in fact this agreement the closure specifically says listen anyone who were hurt tailed as of next months as a result of this closure retiree benefits were something that was being offered to pa facilitate the closure of this mill and it was an offer that was being made to anyone that was being curtailed out as a result of the closure of the the notion we don't know exactly how this all relates but i do we do know that there was an offer of benefits to age sixty five and then there are some provisions that the company is relying on to excuse their performance that excuse of performance is based upon ambiguous language that is clear and their proposed interpretation is inconsistent with their own practice with their own agreements and with the language quite honestly and so you remind me we're talking about the terminations of health insurance reservation language somehow limited the a grant of a retiring benefit the reservation language is simply reasons relating to the ability for the company to change plans when that during the goshi ations for active employees  argument that somehow it's because of it's own corporation and we're not taking issue with the textural argument we recognize that there is a tax to argument there but the intent of the parties was at the time of entering into this was to simply preserve the right for the company to be able to