compensated for the charges they provide to nonmembers and your workers do not shop for undue financial out my question is why are you should know itin losing battle against each nobody attempted to settle to settle it there is no alternative dispute resolution method available to settle this dispute between and say we should follow brady our case was that ever raised in dempsey or kansas city or white and it was that race because you're in the third circuit now eleven this this is important because this is the structure of the statue that this squad got there in the very deed case now this arcane and the works as a trainman belong to the bialy period and consequently he suffers the detriment that i describe under the yellow line the different provisions affect differently people depending on where they're working yeah no i and and i guess also we should not pickler in a particular case but this goes on and on and on and on and represents to my mind and not only to my merely a ext please the court i'm clinton j miller the third time general counsel to the apple united transportation union and to answer judge jackson's question there were serious efforts at merging these two organizations and in two thousand  i agree we have met each other coming and going with respect to this issue and these issues that are involved here i recall in the corps and case where it was the b l e who made the seniority maintenance agreement and we still felt that that violated our rights under section two eleven see i wrote the brief but i sent my associate to the seventh circuit argument and he said it began when judge easterbrook said who had been on the dempsey panel you know you were on the other side of this issue in the demps what do you think we are stupid and it went downhill from there it's clear that the law with respect to specific issues here has been settled by three circuits all of whom have rejected the arguments that both you to you and b l e t have made to them with respect to to eleventh and to fourth i will say judge ackerman that there's that this provision no longer applies as we noted in our brief a footnote one it expired by its own terms as extended on march one two thousand and seven and there is scant likelihood that there's any appetite to revive it the only reason that the case but i suggested that in the mediation phase we talked about th problem is that one of the individual plaintiffs has a damage claim so with respect to his damage claim i suppose it's not it hasn't jumped out at me you know we did not move to dismiss because of the damage claim which i thought i couldn't move to dismiss the whole case because technically that why i don't know how much of mr wilder intends to assert but union dues for each of these two unions probably approximate less than one hundred dollars a month it was right many months it was for a confined period i would say it went on individuals is that were no class action here you have two individuals who are looking for four or their dues for a year now is that correct where it believes this case is is is moot in part and keep in mind there were two separate provisions one of them was contingent upon there being a similar agreement  under two fourth unless it's necessary to make the x procedures work and you should avoid being broiled and partisan it and that's what we're going to have any apparently any alternative dispute procedures here that are applicable in this post certification post certification procedure of the room with labor act is is collective bargaining and this issue's been addressed in collective bargaining by the carriers with both unions these are longstanding relationships these particular terms these seniority maintenance permits have been negotiated by both sides in the industry but they came out of the agreement in two thousand and seven it's not applicable with major carriers now the same provision was offered to the b l e t they turned down that means there's no discrimination involved here so the carriers answer the court is leave this where it is grow it back to them they can either resolve it by talking to each other or through collective bargaining with the carrot and that's what the act intended this is not an interventionist federal statute the supreme court has repeatedly said it wants to keep railway labor act disputes nationwide dispute you know the old adage about it does not make it fun to go the old adage about laws and sausages applies even more so to collective bargaining agreements but i would say that the context for negotiating  was job reduction for poles and this was a protection of what would happen related to job production well that was the context in which was to go shave it but it was arm's length like  cheechoo because this case is different from to get that yes that's correct and there's another point too and that's the difference between a free certification and a post certification know a post certification format once there is a collective bargaining agreement the adjustment for the arbitrator as exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute so a others and are members similarly situated we're not enforcing our own rights here we're enforcing the rights of employee is i say what we're trying to do well what we're trying to do is avoid the situation set up by the carriers whereby