counsel i would request i mean you and unless you have something unique to add on this discussion we've been having in general and you would get to your second issue and that i'm not we don't preclude from addressing the first one but we having some lengthy discussion and we're very well apprised on the first issue thank you i was i was going to try and shorten it significantly i would just simply note on the whole arbitration issue that to engage in individual agreements with employees as long as there is no interference with their rights and so there's section nine and then there's section seven right to refrain which you've already heard about the waiver here does not interfere with the filing of board charges unlike what the board in a very strained reading of the waiver held the basically they came down and said that one heading was a big us because it left out the word lawsuit and secondly that the waiver would lead a reasonable employee to include that they were precluded from filing a board charge logistic care waiver is the most narrow of of all of them that that to the court this court has so far considered including the convergence waiver logistic care waiver precludes the filing of a collective or class action in lawsuits everywhere in the waiver everywhere in the policy it says plaintiff's lawyers and lawsuits nowhere does it say anything expans e like all claims all legal disputes the haneen that the board objected to is jury and class slash collective action waiver apparently because one heading didn't use the term lawsuit at the end of it the board found that it was ambiguous despite every textual reference otherwise in the policy that says lawsuit plaintiff's lawyers how does chesapeake support your argument thought you said in your brief that chesapeake was helpful to you on this and i think it's actually not helpful to you on this so maybe you could help mr are a little quick look i'm sorry it really focused on chesapeake um ok well maybe it's another case and i should be looking because the the chesapeake energy waiver was limited is much more limited and i'm sorry but ours is much more limited than chesapeake chesapeake said not only lawsuits but also any other civil proceeding and so therefore again it's broader a civil proceeding could well be a board charge i'll admit it's that's undefined lawsuits are very clear and the common parlance of a lawsuit is a filing in court your argument that the phrase trial lawyers should have made clear that it that it would be the n l r b was you were a protection record i'm sorry your honor plaintiff's lawyers the term that's used in the in the policy is i believe is plaintiff's lawyers all right i thought your brief was making the point about trial here and in murphy the court specifically in murphy murphy had changed it to say doesn't involve the filing of a charge but the court also said in murphy that that is not dispositive that is we're not saying it's a requirement but it sure would be nice basically is what the court said in murphy so the lawsuits as we said are our court cases in agreement it's got to be read in its entirety you can't just simply cherry pick a portion of the policy your portion of the waiver and say or of the waiver explanation and say like the board does here that a heading which doesn't include lawsuit is ambiguous and therefore it invalidates the entire document moreover frankly that portion of the board's decision on ambiguity i believe undercuts the claim that an employee might not understand what lawsuit really means because it says basically in the absence of the word lawsuit somehow the waiver became ambiguous well then that would mean that the rest of it's very clear lawsuit is lawsuit and it's not ambiguous the logistics are waivers very specific it's more specific than those in d r horton and murphy the murphy clause was found to be not reasonably construed add any and all disputes or claims ours lawsuits lawsuits lawsuit no argument in any of the other cases that the because theoretically people would consider themselves to be precluded from filing board charges and given the court's injunction in the beginning of this not to not to go over other areas i convergence and it was actually a point that we are going to forfeit it because they didn't raise a below the same as for the twenty discussion that we had regarding of the bill johnson's argument ok section nine a creates an exception it's not a right to employees to be free it's an exception to the rule that once a union has been chosen by employees as its representative it is the exclusive bargaining representative and the employee may not engage in direct dealing with employees there is an exception to that in nine a saying that employees and employers may talk together directly to adjust and the grievances by employees but it's not a right by employees because if the employee approaches the employer and says hey i have this problem i'd like to talk about it with you the employer is entirely entitled to say nope go talk to your counsel mr mcnamara i think the critical point was when he used the words technically and when he said i myself have never referred to board hearings as trials the the board does not meet these rules from the standpoint of than a lawyer with a j d it reads them from the standpoint of the lay person employee and the on the very specific point of whether a lawsuit wo somehow only mean somehow exclude board proceedings setting aside that as we've mentioned in our brief employees often do talk about suing their employer in the board  hall the board found that there was a such there with the there was an agreement covering all disputes and specifically assigned member that said specified that it applied to disputes claim or controversies simply not realistic what's your best case that we should agree that this is not appropriate i mean what's the best case when one was stricken down because even though there was a mention of the word lawsuit specifically there was in both of those cases specific language that says claims that can be heard in a court of law in a judicial setting and the were the well they were their board cases right do you have any case law holding the board  i'm afraid off the top of my head i can't i can't oh it's a difficult little i mean it could be vast questions the board wants to call itself an article three court but it's not well known what about your companion case the issue is not there but the phrases claim that's a lot more comprehensive it certainly is more comprehensive but it again to the on trains minds to the person who who is not filing you know a claim and the charge asking asking an employee somewhere has to explain to you what's the difference between a claim and a charge what's the difference between a hearing and a trial you know does does law suit mean hearing or does it mean judicial trial should we be influenced by the fact that it says trial by jury in the previous paragraph and you're not going to have a that under the canons of statutory interpretation superfluous language would you know i would see that argument but again i would go back to the fact that really and i actually have a case recently where you know in a rule like this  dictionary no i think your honor you would defer because these are run of the mill bread and butter board cases the board has seen these cases has seen people arrive before it who don't people call i actually did a detail and in a region and people call board employees all the time saying hey i have this problem could is there something you can do to help me they don't know the first thing about or proceedings especially if they are not stewards or of filled it with a union and so they just call and ask for information and help and when they're told well they'll be a judge to hear your case you know then they don't each other if the circumstances do not suggest an intent to interfere with the rights under the act that certainly there's certainly no suggestion here that anything was meant to mean to do with rights under the act secondly with regards to employees calling interesting lee and i know it's not dispositive but katherine levy signed the waiver and then promptly filed a charge you hall w one of the cases that the board is relying upon in that case the waiver was any other legal or equitable claims recognized by state federal or local law or regulations much much broader than lawsuits and bills electric it was all disputes and any legal claims in connection with rights under federal or state law therefore all both of those two would include agency actions