educational labor relations board all right is fair is the time frame you know usually each side gets about fifteen minutes for their comments and probably at the palace usually we all right mr feldman whether the issue in this case was substantive the entire picture all and second whether the labor board aired when refusing to review an arbitrator's erroneous application of the legal standard for condition to arbitrate and it therefore we submit is clearly arbitrary the most recent case and i think the attorney general for this is republic of argentina decision he just filed with you the court discussion in that case just directly on point regarding the issue in this case the supreme court explained that courts no article and that is the situation we have in this case we submit the arbitrator erred in holding that you have no jurisdiction to decide whether or not the condition and in effect gave the choice to the school board said he should consider in determining how ok but let's say that it was done in the fashion you're suggesting in other words everybody proceeds arbitration and then at the arbitration is this arbitrator able to conclude at that case and limit his first hearing to that issue take the evidence on that issue in the arguments on that issue and decide then only if he decides that the matter is  provision in the contract and if she had died no one else knew both of those facts that the employer wait until the arbitration hearing and then made its motion which in effect said we d d the employer will decide which form of abuse and was preg my argument is they should have done this immediately and that they waived any claim by doing what they did thirty i would have argued that  she's going to formally withdraw obvious and proceed backtrace or is that something that wouldn't be allowed because she already made election that's exactly what i did the beginning of the arbitration hearing when i found out about it we offered we said she then it was our position she was entitle to have a a hearing before the federal agency the purpose the whole purpose of this thing was you supposed to get a choice but the way this was manipulated by the school board  test which is half a century that reason has only been applied the situations in which the case was out of trouble if he has the authority to hear the case and decide the case the only if it's arbitrary there's no case that says that that principle applies to the situation involving substantive well let me ask you that i'm a little confused here because the board in their findings specifically said maybe you can explain this to me however if this is in their decision and it says in so far as it concerns the up collective bargaining agreement and that's where this the selection of remedies this right s are in their decision may say that the interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement illinois supreme court case where it set his fire is interpret ing the collective bargaining agreement substantive arbiter building which is which is what you say this was right when he said that the situation involving time limits lakshmi's a condition under which you can arbitrate those are procedural questions for the arbitrator isn't that what he did when he said this can't be arbitrary because purpose which was to give her choice and given the circumstances under which she unknowingly had filed this thing i said read her with prof no but he said i can't do that because i have no authority to do mean the unions are treated they didn't get a review of the arbitrator's decision they did it just like this court refused decisions from lower courts or from administrative agencies that doesn't give it the same kind of review each day sometimes it's what then how do you reconcile mr feldman's position what what is your opinion on whether or not the arbitrator had the right in the first instance to decide well whether or not by filing the suit she gave up the right to arbitration don't you think get involved  mr feldman raises here that the that the employee supposedly did not know what about this provision he decided that that did not matter and what that provision and it was the and the union was her representative and the representative of all their employee is for and ah and so be it for that reason the arbitrator concluded that the provision was a flexible term her and that the question of her not like a really  said ok that said and the board also looked to see whether the arbitrator's decision was consistent with the act and said yes it was that the parties are free to put in provisions  into the act that will limit the right to have grievances issue and so for those reasons you know we believe the board's decision was  remedies clause trumps the arbitration clause every case i have cited to you in the brief says you can't do that they say that it's our trouble unless there is no no reasonable argument that could be made that it's not our but from all a millisecond few substantive arbitron ability and procedural or original you can waive arbitration can't you absolutely and isn't that essentially what the arbitrator said here if you're conceding that this is a procedural decision on his part and in a procedural decision is within his purview isn't just essentially what he did here this is say that you waived the the problem with that he said in his findings the grieving has elected her remedy and her farm and remained loyal to it that's what he said and so he's sitting there and there's pending you know seeking play and there's an arbitration  clause was to be interpreted well motion to dismiss was filed i didn't speak the arbitrator did not rule until june twenty sixth did you file a written response did you do anything whilst there and here in essentially based on written papers or did you not respond in any way to the application since we both respond that we were not given to hear off because you said i decide the case unless it's based upon the wall without giving you a hearing but that's the key difference here the fact that if it's in and i may not be making it clear if it's going to average people he  ssion there's only one problem there that she didn't know about any of this until the hearing when the when the other traitor when the school board brought up well what kind of an argument is that i'm not sure what only if we're going to have a hearing in this case if you are going to decide that her withdraw all that's not permit her to have an arbitration case then she is in a position where she gets neither and that what he says it substantively going to have trouble then he has no authority to go beyond that if he if he though used the wrong words it really doesn't make any difference from our standpoint because the issue is not what the average trader called the issue is was this a matter of procedure and if it was i think everyone here agrees that that was something the ira trader could decide