the district court's grant of summary judgment in this case judge real issued an opinion where we had submitted substantial evidence that from our perspective certainly a stablished a breach of the duty  respect to the two thousand and seven agreement that had been reached that allowed her to bump back into original clerk position in the event that the promotion that she had received was subject to elimination through a reduction in force without trial be necessary on the issue of whether or not the little the documents they sent in the email sinjar to agreement the collective bargaining agreement and  agreement the two thousand and eight flecked of bargain agreement and the two thousand and twelve memorandum of understanding are all valid in forcible and consistent and the issue here the court excluded the two thousand and seven agreement based on parole evidence holding that it had been superseded by and was inadmissible or could not be considered based upon the fact that it proceeded the collective bargaining agreement but there are an abu triable issues of fact regarding whether that result was actually correct and so we do believe that a trial is necessary on this issue specifically i might think that this is this could be resolved on summary judgment one way or the other to lose but i dasn't you know i mean that we've got a lot of he said she said well we do have a lot of evidence in the form of the specific language of the collective bargaining agreement that should have moved for summary judgment but obviously that's water under the bridge at this point right all we're hearing now is whether or not there are triable issues that mean that this case should go to trial i thought the close issue perhaps would have been on i think your client says that her representative that was appointed to represent her never did tell her about this mediation offer i believe that that might have been the issue but could that have been counted by the record in the sense that your client the dissipated in these negotiations for the collective bargaining agreement although i'm not to certain about the record in terms of the animal you write and so it was the two thousand a eight negotiation of the collective bargaining agreement and it's in the record my client was very active in the union and was a participant in those negotiations which came shortly less than a year after the seniority agreement that's true but there's not a specific category of jobs that's actually listed in the collective bargaining agreement so what we're getting into now your honor and thank you for raising it is that in the context of ongoing negotiations and relations between management and the union over years and sometimes decades there is a system of industrial justice that has evolved that allows for hundreds of side agreements that are never ultimately put into the collective bargaining three months by mutual agreement of the parties can be entered could not be can take in a context of current as opposed to pass situations not based on the language because the collective bargaining agreement specifically preserves a number of things including side agreements every time a collective bargaining agreement is negotiated in this case it was every four years in some workplaces it's three years or five years or even longer it doesn't mean that everything that has happened up to that point is suddenly wiped out because a new collective bargaining agreement is entered into often times the collective bargaining agreements are virtually identical the only area that's often changed is the wage scale sometimes there's a change in benefits as we've seen in the last decade or so because of the cost of those but all of the other standards of collective bargaining agreements typically remain the same and in fact article three of the two thousand and eight collective bargaining agreement specifically had standards preserved clause that prohibited members from suffering any reduction in wages benefits or other terms and conditions of employment economic or other ro wise as a result of coverage under the c b s there's also in the record of the bourse those declaration that article three was specifically intended to pursue service local agreements like miss rollins two thousand and seven agreement there's also evidence in the record that there were regularly side letters or agreements not expressly referenced by incorporation into the sea and it was both the hospital representatives testimony the union's representative testimony that negotiated the two thousand and seven take he would you were to agree with me that if we were just talking about the c b a and maybe just some of the questions we opponent if you were just talking about the collective bargaining agreement that was being negotiated openly was an n p r the rif reduction in force could just talk about that in this you know argue agreement you might have a strong argument that there's no inconsistency between those two but then when you with and doesn't say anything about the ability to bump back into a position that had been previously negotiated m o you simply eliminate eliminated the m c h position but miss rollins already had an existence in agreement that allowed her to bump back into the ward position so your understanding of the em all you is that it triggers the operation of the email agreement absolutely in fact it was the implementation of the reduction in force that made the effectuate of that earlier two thousand and seven agreement necessary it was just a document that existed up until that point as protection which is the reason it's one of the reasons that miss rollins decided to accept this agreement because her except the position because she didn't want to give up her twenty plus years of seniority in the position that she had at the new position was for more money she was willing to take it but only on the condition that if it allowed her to bump back into her former position so she could maintain her seniority in the event of a reduction in force and there are numerous provisions throughout the collective bargaining agreement and even in the  by not recognizing the two thousand and seven agreement the union created a fifth circumstance that is not allowed or not provided for by the collective bargaining agreement but council at at the record diarra eleven ninety five dash ninety six did it also include the be no bumping opportunity so for for anyone that did not have a side agreement that may be accurate your honor but we're not talking about some of the that situation referred to just in generality it did not include someone who own i guess i didn't read the m l you from my recollection and i apologize to i don't you know not all that good on memory sometimes but my memory seems to suggest that there was no limitation of what no bumping opportunity meant well in the context there was nothing in the end all you to suggest that that language had anything to do with any prior agreements that were reached but wasn't no bumping opportunity means so what that means is you can't bump in the position that you were in there's no opportunity this provided the two thousand and seven agreement provided miss rollins the opportunity to revert back to a position that she previously well based on the expressed terms of the agreement and if in fact there is any inconsistency between the  demo you and the two thousand and seven agreement then that's a tribal issue that's something that needs to be determined by a jury if there is any consistency in consistency whatsoever because then we would have t find it it may be here but i can't find it maybe maybe the other side can help me at some point must find out the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the union and the reason is one be a parent's employer complied with the clear provisions of the collective bargaining agreement when it laid off the appellant and affirming summary judgment and so as to the first issue whether the collective bargaining agreement was breached i want to just flush out the district court's ruling because i think it's a little confused in the brief the court first rule that the employer comply with the clear terms of the collective bargaining agreement and article fourteen that allow the employer at any time during the life of the agreement to implement a reduction in for him for so long as it followed the process in article fourteen which include which required providing adequate notice to the union and after providing adequate notice to the union the parties could also negotiate into an alternative an alternative agreement regarding the implementation of or of a reduction  the parties believe that that was in the best interest of the limit let me cut to the chase series describe what i think i'm going to be doing and that is to say i think the fundamental issue here before we get to whether the union can properly complied with  forcible we did not appeal that finding of the judge's decision so for argue for our purposes here we will can we will accept the district court's finding that the two thousand and seven e mail agreement was a valid agreement ok the court then ruled correct so that this is not you but this is double talk as far as i'm concerned from the district judge he's saying is valid but it's invalid so tell me why it's invalid the reason why do we believe it's invalid is because first agreement was valid what's inconsistent with that agreement is that when the subsequent c v a was negotiated in two thousand and eight article fourteen was created in two thousand and eight that well our position is that the site agreement in two thousand and seven article fourteen allowed for alternative agreements however in order to even implement a reduction in force the employer first had to comply with those notice agreement vacancies is to be considered and how under the collective bargaining agreement seniority is to be evaluated there's nothing in article thirteen that in any way describes these bumping rights or the special two thousand and seven side agreement that protected the those individual rights but if i look at article fourteen easy and i assume that this is more or less a continuation of language from an earlier a upon mutual agreement the union on the employer may agree on an alternative arrangement regarding reduction in force not and that's seems to me describes the site agreement is says ok if this job is eliminated i get the bump then could be an alternative arrangement under under article of article fourteen but i will note for the record that there is evidence in the record that article fourteen was not part of the prior collective bargaining agreement and so everything that is an article for team with respect to the implementation of reduction in force with respect to the process with respect to notice requirements and with respect to alternative arrangements was negotiated in two thousand and eight with the reduction in force took place in two thousand and twelve the parties then entered into an alternative agreement with respect to that specific reduction in force in two thousand and twelve so so when you said all are you then talking about them all you correct so what is it in them all i think i'm hearing from you that so far as the c b i is concerned falling for the opponents of sort of the agreement specifically states that the parties have committed to a joint effort to ensure adherents to the collective bargaining bargaining language and smooth transition for these modified by this agreement negates any prior agreement with just an action show that again before give me the language again because i don't get it yeah sure the statement that says that the collective bargaining agreements between the parties will govern all aspects of this reduction in force except as modified above so for our good let's presume for argument's sake that the two thousand and seven email agreement was somehow part of that c v a this twenty twelve m o u supersedes and that was the union's observer taishan of the m o u when decided not to cross the grievance so even if even if the court were to assume that the union was wrong and how it interpreted the two thousand and seven in the e mail in conjunction with the two thousand and eight two thousand and twelve c v a in conjunction with the two thousand and twelve and will you we go back to the issue of the union's judgment and the union's discretion and interpret in the collective bargaining agreement and this court has never held where a union made to evidence in the record of when the union reviewed the two thousand and seven you will agreement at each step of the process and i can do that for your honour's i know my time is almost up but first of all  representative about the two thousand and seven evolving then in october of two thousand and twelve it's undisputed the union receives a copy of the two thousand and seven email agreement and i'm only talking about the undisputed facts on november seventh of two thousand and twelve the union timely files agreements and the union steward timely files a grievance after speaking with the appellant about her specific situation about her belief that she had these pumping rights intern in the event of a reduction in for incorrectly that the settlement desired was to follow the collective bargaining agreement and make all affected whole in any and all ways in her remarks she states the reduction of force was not performed using departments forced positions the process and results on all clerical and clerk positions the process and result on the reason not to accept the prior reduction in force arrangement for starla rawlins and that's found at  export of record volume six twelve twenty eight so it's clear also that in december of two thousand and twelve after the grievances timely filed for union steward believe she has a meritorious grievance my time is almost up but paste it can be verified it's understated both in the testimony of the appellant and the union steward that it was the h r representative who said that then moving another question but ok well if i know them but i i will admit that i will in conclusion just let the court know that ultimately at the end of the day the union did process the grievance accordingly did not do so in a perfunctory arbitrary manner and if at the end of the day we cannot substitute the court's judgment or the appellant's judgment for the unions judgment into turning whether or not the the grievance had merit to you on this question wasn't really decided e mail agreement the court says the substance of the plaintiff's email agreement and the procedure by which it was entered into are inconsistent with the comprehensive and unambiguous terms of the m o you the emails are therefore not part of the c v a and no breach occurred then let me ask you a question who drafted the order that the judge assigned our office did but it's verbatim from the judge's minute order which is also in the opponent's expert a record of ali moore in your honor ok and if i just may knowledge and belief and at the time the grievance was filed the union refused to acknowledge the two thousand and seven email agreement because it said it was a cut and paste and unverifiable and of course it did absolutely nothing to verify the agreement in this case we have submitted an abundance of evidence actually verifying the legitimacy of that agreement both parties to it the sanchez miss king have submitted declarations it was negotiated through their emails through both the union and the hospitals and so all of that could have been obtained easily it was also contained in the union's file and because they did not believe that it was verifiable they didn't provide it to the appeals board they did not argue at the appeals hearing anything about it and they lumped in this rawlins grievance together with other employees that had been laid off as part of a class grievance rather than addressing the individual merits of her specific case based on this agreement that allowed her to revert to her previous position so that her seniority would not be lost is in the union's position of voters in york agreement was that it was quote not relevant to the emmel you well i heard their position but i think it is highly relevant because it's not inconsistent with the terms of the m o you it allowed her to have a specific agreement that the m o you then cause to come into play that's really our position it was the m o you that made the document relevant  exact opposite really and again it it seems as if we we seem to be heading to the i guess everyone can see perhaps that emily you say three cuts criteria for our employees rich absent from those three criteria is making opportunities there's no language about that correct it's silent on that and so your position is that because it's silent because article fourteen i believe talks about other greens it's possible like imo you that the prior agreement the sinyard agreement is still a political exactly exactly order and i also want to point out that the argument that they union did analyze the two thousand and seven agreement and found that it had been superseded by the collective bargaining agreement that was never raised at any time until this litigation it was an argument that was made in summary judgment i also want to point out that the union argued that the standard of review is not the novo but abuse of discretion with respect to the court's ruling on the pro evidence and i just wanted to point out to the i have one question that's not tied to this case i've got another case argued to a different panel on which i sat several months ago in which your client is the name plaintiff having to do with whether or not the retirement plan is a church plan do you know anything about that case or how she happens to be the plaintiff in two cases in front of me i am not heard tourney of record for that case only or not i know that she was very involved in union activities  so i am aware that there was another case but i did not know that your honor was actually involved in it when i'm involved in the sense i was on the panel in the decisions not yet but yeah ok got it ok and it's just totally irrelevant in this case ok thanks much side for