the decision of the i am son appeals committee to deprive mr anthony of his participation rights and benefits was not reasonable by any measure in three principal ways the st was  referral to the employer when the plans of the fields committee said district lodge one unilaterally determines who is to be covered for the purposes of the suspension contributions that's at the nine they make clear that the trustees not the employer has the full discretion and authority to adopt the specials the district court concluded that the committee was merely requesting information that doesn't square with the unilaterally determines decision adopted by the plant in fact the st question put to the union was what job classifications did two of the participation agreement it's it has this phrase which is i understand the lower court's decision is is the key  phrase that turns what would otherwise be an unambiguous word employees or an unambiguous phrase all its employees into an ambiguous phrase and the phrase in paragraph those four words in all job classifications what does a reasonable person supposed to think is the work that those four words are doing in a nutshell all were except those class another way to say not covered by collective bargaining yes your honor said that previous paragraph and you have three things together the district court they live services that she did not implement so when you read the agreement as a whole the st two paragraphs for from from me to you what what law do you think governs what's what state law or is it is it washington d c common law governs our interpretation of this or is it it's some kind of a receipt based narrow federal common law that's an exception to the general rule that there is no general federal com of all these obligations that's why the land committee is the government unit the do share and that's why the matter should not have gone beyond that and what is your best citation for that nor is he entitled to as the district lodge organized i just have a simple question is that i want that aid or it's from a r two hundred and sixty two dollars a letter from tony  contributions made on his behalf by the district lodge the fund nor is he entitled to as the distant lodge organizer it's basically just saying brother powell is not entitled to coverage by the and so your question is does mr powell actually receive benefits from the farm or mike like that is basically the sepsis my question but maybe singapore is where i'm really asking about something from the record that statement in the record correct the statement says brother pal is not covered by the fund is that statement correct to my information yes there is no so there is certainly and what is for the purposes of this court's review there is nothing in the administr to contradict that statement no evidence this court's review is to evaluate the committee's decision based upon the information that evidence that was present to do it there was no information or evidence presented to it to a correct factually correct statement regarding mr pollo but more directly no contradictory evidence was presented to the committee and this court can only review what  was presented to the committee right and i think a slightly different answer and then that i also wonder if you could answer the question i asked mr fay about what what law do you think up what kind of common law do you think applies to our interpretation of this contract do you think it's d c local common law or something else i think of i think it's actually somewhat of a mix there is a common law under for  a developed federal commonlaw interesting cases for example the entire premise that there this court reviews the committee's decision as a matter of discretion isn't found in the a recessed actually dizzy judicially created  doctrine at the same time of us the question regarding the statute of limitations and the general accepted rule of law under the federal common law the risk is that in cases like this you adopt the  most analogous state law so for example it would this would the the statute of limitations that would be a political in this case would be the district of columbia statute of limitations for breach of contract actions by analogy and that apply to that that our interpretation of the participation agreement i believe that i believe that is correct subject to the cabbie that of course you review the committee's decision to decisions by with deference to the comm just stepping back a moment and and stepping back from the issue a little bit six you and judge walker were discussing whether the small presentation about powell was correct is correct  whether they signed a record showing otherwise and a more fundamental question which is if it were ron and if anthony had presented evidence at the time the record was open that powell actual was receiving benefits and some period of time when he was in the job that anthony had that would undermine the union or the funds position whatever i don't think i think the committee could have still reached the decision that it reached it would have had to have it would have had to have made a decision based upon the competing evidence rather than the unilateral evidence that was actually present to job classifications where it's twenty percent are required by a written agreement and if the law just entered a written agreement to cover organizers that it hadn't previously this the fact that the allegation because it's not a fact the allegation that mr powell receives benefits from the fun to the extent that could weigh on the whether organizers were to be covered by the participation agreements as they existed during the time of mr anthony's employment that i suppose could be competing evidence but i certainly agree as i understood your question to be that there would be nothing to preclude the district lodge after mr anthony left left the district lodges employment to sign a new participation agreement on behalf of organizers that would cover mr powell of course because mr anthony did not present or raise any issues to the committee rich disagreeing with the with what the committee was told regarding mr powell there was no basis for the committee to conduct further investigation into that and of course it didn't even come up during the course of the district co of the district court litigation but instead it only came up during and only came up during the post judgment motion and referring back to an issue the judge walker if if you read it paragraph two of these participation agreements and then do what mr anthony i'm sorry mr anthony threw his counsel suggests and interpret all job classifications do in fact mean all employees then the effect of that would be to read the words regarding job classifications out of the participation or it would have if you read the words in all job classifications covered by this agreement out of paragraph two paragraph two would have the exact same meaning according to mr fay in that it would read that a lodge shall contribute to the fund for each hour day or portion thereof for which all employees are entitled to receive pay  absolutely no reason to believe the anthonys allegations regarding how are in any way accurate well that's not true it's the plan the plan goes to the participants are just look at the roster in the number of powers on is on the roster or not talk about all these ways of gathering their employees and keeping track of a very simple matter so you know everybody's got a right to argue these through the technical but i think the truth is going to govern here because we're looking for federal rights that would in order to mr anthony and others and if there weren't to be exceptions made should have been made for him you that anthony has made the phone call in the information to come in when that record going to the committee and or to the district court was still open classification were for which we sawyer contributions are required to this land fire written agreement between the trustees and a contributing lodge could still have been met in both anthony because of what happened that a new written agreement was entered including the organizer job classification and in the category for which employers how divisions are required in other words it was a