brief but that's exactly what the court below did and that's just  section eleven thirteen which was to balance the concerns of an economically stressed that are too overweight liquidation and the goal of ensuring that the union has a voice in the impact of those financial circumstances section eleven thirteen which would see the guards to make sure that the collective bargaining agreement was not being rejected because it is hard to avoid it or evade it was being rejected because it was necessary to keep the debtor in business and we now have the situation with hasn't come up with who or what is the getter is still being constrain more generally and the need to avoid absurd results all point in the same direction a dedicated meets all section eleven thirteen is very stringent requirements to reject a collective bargaining agreement whether or not the agreement is not expired we are in the text would you're saying that is what we should infer to mean this collective bargaining covers both that which isn't an unexpired agreement as well as the conditions continuous that is an extremely powerful touch your argument in our favor and and without three sixty five how do we if we were not to put that into the formula what would be your argument when on the other  one one one three the need given the way the national labor relations act operates following an r b t cats the need for relief from a collective bargaining agreement is exactly the same post expiration as it is pretty expiration and i phone so the power given by congress in such in a one in thirteen without limitation such as an expired or is the bizarre results in which while a contract is in effect a bankruptcy court can change it but once it expires it acquires more binding status on the parties than it at what was actually effect that simply makes no sense remain a debtor he laterally terminator order any provision of a collective bargaining agreement prior to compliance with the provisions of the section if we adopt the appellant's interpretation in eleven thirteen because the statute is all about what it takes to reject which is typically what is going to happen when a debtor is in straitened circumstances and labor costs are part of the reason for it now eleven thirteen after impasse well because the entire purpose of section eleven thirteen is to deal with situations in which the need for restructuring labor costs is urgent and the court must apply as the bankruptcy court did approve rejection of collective bargaining agreement are quite stringent including the new must of rejected the push proposal without good cause congress don't have a comprehensive way in eleven thirteen with a situation in which the employer really does need about eleven thirteen not maintaining the status quo even if a bankruptcy judge makes the requisite findings which are quite stringent and if the parties and engage in the requisite process which is very demanding on the employer then yes by rejecting the collective bargaining agreement that sets the terms that define the status quo the employer may change the status quo as indeed is what happened in this case and as indeed according to one contradicts the findings what was what must happen at the start of a surviv a process was not drafted with the bankruptcy policy in mind section eleven thirteen on the other hand was drafted very much with both labor and bankruptcy policy in mind and it is congress's conscious effort to accommodate giving  union all kinds of substance protections but getting the stuff from broad scope again is reflected in the contrast between eleven thirteen a day which does not use the words executive or your expired and three sixty five a which does use those words it also matters that the provision being construed as part of the bankruptcy code one of the core policies of the code particularly its reorganization provisions is to preserve if possible an ongoing business if sectional in thirteen is construed in accordance with its tax with no limitation to executive or you're on expired collective bargaining agreements then the court with a comprehensive understanding of what it takes to preserve a business can apply the stringent subset of criteria of the section eleven thirteen to decide whether and how agreement far harder to change after it expires than when it's still in force by its own terms that is the opposite of the normal freedom of contract and would make the wrong most disfavor those employers with the strongest equitable case employers who have proved to a judge a satisfaction that they must liquidate unless they can be relieved from the terms they previously agreed to and who did not voluntarily agree to be bound by those terms past the expiration date makes it easier to get out from under a burdensome agreement well it's actually in effect and harder after it expires which is what do you now ask for simply makes no sense fortunately neither text nor about the sort of history even hints that congress had such a thirteen d because it's not being used in the dictionary sense of end permanently it's just a way of saying what happens if the bankruptcy court didn't rule of course or the bankruptcy court it will what about the language in effect that's in the statute makes reference to being able to seek  from the n r a process citing the case of the supreme court and supreme court did use continues in effect to refer to the post expiration effects of the times in addition to the collective bargaining agreement it is mildly helpful