employees who operate and maintain the electric power system here in the city of springfield operated by the city for decades going back to only at least the late night thirty's and the in addition they want to be the wage increases that were scheduled under the labor agreement to be away from the city attempted to justify these  seriously the city argument basically made no sense the union the union concluded it could not explain to its members of why they should reopen the labor agreement and the union decided not to submit this new fiscal year a layoff the fifty eight employees for thirty days which the city told the union was the economic equivalent the twelve for a long days for everyone layoffs the city's response was that the layoffs were for quote lack of funds and that because the layoffs were for lack of funds the grievances would not be processed and  initiated by employees and this becomes important shortly because the city argued the language that they thought limited employee filed grievances also limited union found grievances article three of the labor agreement has the agreement to arbitrate it is very simple and it's very comprehensive if the representatives of the employer of the local union are under the bill to resolve the grievance then the grievance may be referred accordance with the procedures outlined below the exceptions we would tax point out to the court that the primary substantive provisional labor agreement that the union was relying upon is article four section one of the agreement which states all regular employees covered by this agreement shall receive all time employment provided that they are ready and in condition to their work in accordance with the terms set forth in the agreement employees laid off because a job is completed or shut down for reasons beyond the city's control during any month shall be paid in full today hope layoffs in the union believe that this section protected the employees from a temporary layoff for reasons related to the city having to adjust the budget line of the city rely primarily on article twenty three section one which we asked the court pay very close attention to for what it says and what it doesn't say this article reads the employer has the ri is very important to them however any employee levied off for any reason other than whack of war or lack of funds may find out a grievance pursuant to the procedures outlined in this agreement we have a right but we cannot enforce the third problem with the court's ruling on this article is that the parties have a define the term lack of funds and then apply it and in this case because they needed to adjust the future budget line item that was the justification for the lack of funds and we  think that that reading the country just makes happy no sense the whole of for a couple of reasons you know the the budgetary process is by its nature projecting assumptions into the future that's what you do when you budget and the problem that we all know is that the the future is politically unpredictable and and and when you budget you you can be wrong infrequently in the city has been wrong and the the second thing is that these budgets are governed by these accounting roles that are again complex and you give the budgeting authority different options on how they're going to treat different expense items and so that the budgeting process really has nothing to do with what's going on so those you know what's really going on with the the business  well you're giving up twelve days but if the finances approved by mid year it's only six days in plus we're going to give you two more paid days in the next fiscal year well how could the union on year after it close and then part of that year which was budgeted when when this dispute arose the city made a twenty four million dollars here on expenses in the electrical fund the very fun that they said they had the balance they overstated their expenses by twenty four million dollars so it is well with some issues we  terms of a whole that is a interesting lee enough there was a landmark united states supreme court decision in the eighteen days which is i think my book which basically stands for the proposition that the courts determine if there's an agreement arbitrary which we think is a pretty simple determination case but when that case got remained at the back to the district court of the district court was faced with language of lack of work so close we could get the eighteen t sad that we that the union was saying that there couldn't be layoffs if there was a lack of work outside the area covered by the labor and eighteen t said the arbitrator had no authority to the side that question and the district court said no it is a disputed contract term that is to be curious crunch and the city never never intended that that was the situation they were facing and in any event a lack of funds  we we don't think that that language the language in article twenty three rises to the level waiver because of labor relations the standard is it clear on unequivocal waiver court also relied on article twenty one section one which is the general management rights clause which referred to the city's authority over its budget but twice in that first the illinois uniform arbitration act is is is the this is the legal structure basis for this lawsuit and here it states that the circuit and we honestly had no idea that the circuit court was was going to delve in to the merits of the case and we thought this we were maybe overconfident we thought this was a much other black letter law provision that we think is hapless cobol is the illinois public really labor relations act which regulates the labor relations between public workers and labor unions here in the state of illinois and that  in unless there is a and in some of those things are covered most of the state she says there's a mutual agreement otherwise and we think that when you when you really look ed article twenty three section nion was trying to help the public employee or arbitration to provide workers happened sation insurance for police officers had been injured off duty nothing to do with the point relationship covered by the way and the court in their case said that that was beyond the scope of their arbitration and to use their case which is we can talk about statutes and case law on presumptions but actually this case it's quite a bit simpler than that takes me back to really my first year of law school and looking at those foreign contracts i remember my contracts professor always saying what did the party sparking for a look at the language see what the intent of the party and this contract seems pretty simple mr singer read this language but i think i repeating any employee laid off or discharged for any reasons other than lack of work or lack of funds they file a grievance it's that simple and i remember from contracts that specific provisions apply over general provisions so we can look at the definition of a grievance and we can look at the management rights clause this is obviously much more specific this is found in article twenty three the section union are going that way any other reason for layoff they can absolutely file you know agreements and proceed to arbitration if necessary but this specifically excludes and really because it goes hand in hand with the management right it is for lack of funds it's clear according to the record that discussions with the parties on the city's anticipated budget shortfalls started sometime in january preceeding the budget year it was a lot of exchange of emails back and forth that are documented in the record and the last occurred due to lack of funds and quite simply that is what the parties argand's in this agreement now we can you know dissect absolutely or an arbitration process absolutely i mean very simply the parties could have agreed to a language that said any employer laid off or discharged they file a grievance and excluded the lack of work or laugh lack  than the language that that we have here that language said it had a general management rights class that is found in most collective bargaining agreements but the specific provision regarding lack of work it just allowed employee does not have a right to file a grievance over lack of work or in this case this language really couldn't be much clearer as far as i'm concerned and because of this very specific provision that is ultimately what the circuit court relied on in excluding finding that this is not subject to arbitration and that consideration since it's one of substance of our arbiter ability is one for the court to decide not say here's our problem you know we like to do this why are the union then sees all this material in the union can decide you know what we have the union his interest in the city being a viable