appeal for the missile of count two which is a preach of the agreement between the parties under section three of one of the elem aredo labor management relations act and the main issue on appeal is whether my client can bring a claim under section three you want to be elem are a breach of contract directly against the employer only or whether he is required to bring a so called hybrid claim which is not only a claim for breach of the clock the bargaining agreement but also a breach of the duty of fair presentation against the union the big difference is the hybrid claim has a short six month imitation period where as the breach of contract claim was under reconsideration if the court seemed to focus on this district forcing focus on the case of its connally versus boston addison and that's what i'd like to discuss because it's our position that the court's construction of and therefore there was a breach of contract we have unusually in this case that last chance agreement which is not in the same language as their last chance of grievance if you read it literally it seems to say that the employer can terminate your client and then the terminations becomes effective without having to go through grievance an arbitration it doesn't seem to address the question and therefore you can go straight to court it doesn't seem to address the question of what happens if your client contests that they had an adequate basis to terminate exactly that parts missing from that so there is no dispute mechanism and yet so our position has been that because there is no agreement agreement the parties left that door open to litigation because that was the only way to resolve the great a dispute over the terminations so that's was our position judge stiller reversed his original that it appears he went through a grievance process and he decides mr connelly to resolve that prevents or or the through this last chance agreement and he's under suspension at the time he can only come back under the agreement if he agrees to be found fit for or for duty which entails some drug testing so that's january twenty fifth of that that's a month so for mr connelly available to him and so therefore he now was valen by the finality provisions of the bargaining agreement the difference and my client's case is that there wasn't this one transaction events and had some sort of agreement where they were on some sort of i don't know if you want to call it a suspension period my client's only grievance that's touched upon in the complaint occurred in july of two and seven and we're not arguing that we're appealing that that grievances been settled so your client is i understand it is your client doesn't have any bone to pick with the union no your client was fine with the memorandum of agreement th was entered into what you want to say and they breached it and you won exactly right to inforce that agreement so that's the purpose of the lawsuit is to enforce the agreement that you can't just be fired for any reason that it needs to be consistent with the terms of the agreement in in how do you view if we were to if we were to say you could challenge their attempt to terminate when the condition for termination didn't missions it is a real one claim but the argument is that it's subject to six years because the states actually invitations would apply versus the six months so i'm just twenty five dollars an hour he's a carpenter got a high school education he's an older guy and he's really wasn't able to find unfortunately a great job like this again so it really did have some impact on his his his reduction in wages right he he do some reason there was any reason to come and correct to think that this particular supervisor didn't like him and that he was a boy and that he got rid council that the only dispute in this case is whether mr grant has had a claim under section three hundred one that he could bring in the district court learned judge taylor made the determination that the answer that question is no and we agree with him one hundred percent and here's employer has entered into a new agreement which things is in its best interests you're not going to go through grievance in arbitration when that you have a bit of a i don't think there's a problem in this case because he had the benefit of a grievance process which he pursued to finality the finality of that grievance process was the last chance a great agreement that's the embodiment of the finality of about an earlier grievance he's now action in your motion would be predicated on the fact that the parties have an agreement that they'll be reconstructed tradition that's the reason federal courts to for exactly well here in this case when you made that motion they'd say that's good that's normally the case but here your client and the plaintiff and actually both agreed that there won't be any grievance for this type of dispute so why would the federal court then reject the three  action because you can't look at the last chance for a minute back in the last chance agreement is the finality of the original grievance process this is what mr hugh grant is bargain for better for worse but he  bargain did he have a job and you got in return and you could fire him if a certain condition occurred he finally did and your client says the condition occurred he says it didn't occur sounds like a lawsuit to me and normally we'd go to arbitration but you want if that he waived it through the collective bargaining process and you did too yes ok but what that new court but again you are that's not a license to go  knowing what he meant by the fact that he didn't have an error free grievance process but the fact is that the deal he struck through his union was that he was waiving grievance that does not give him the license after she taint but you seem to read the memorandum of understanding as limited to the particular grievance that was a t stake them he now has the grievance of being terminated is it your argument that the memorandum of understanding has nothing to do with his new  find ality of all he's bound by the result and if he wants to get around the finality will he has got to come to this court and say it wasn't fair to me because the union did something wrong and that the employer if he wants to get b did not have right he had not and terminate right cracked yes and now he's been terminated and you have a memorandum of understanding which in no way by its terms says it is limited to the pass in fact you read it and it appears it is a future oriented because you think you're going to terminate him so why haven't you just given the finality issues that you all could have use and why can't he just proceed in federal court error free reasons process are you saying only because he put that question his reply brief the union were not in that weren't there ok we don't know based on the complaint that was found this case what precisely the issue is other than right because he was going to go get another job anyhow so he is really happy with the union your client then fires them and doesn't pay him one hundred thousand dollars what's he supposed to do that's a different there's a different situation that i know we ha because the he did the deal didn't serve his interests he didn't end up getting a hundred thousand dollars what he would have gotten in that case is he would it would've been a claim for damages yes but he also would have had to claim that the deal he struck didn't guarantee him the money whatever the reason was he should have what he has recourse is a hybrid claim against but there's no case law that says otherwise last the point is that last chance agreements are commonly used methods are resulting raven says we can't the federal labor policy is not promoted if we let employees run in the court five years and three hundred sixty one days later to file a claim for breach of a last chance freeman the last chance agreement as it is an effort to be efficient in this just to address the whole issue of the reply brief and the no error free grievance process what i meant by that was he didn't have a grievance when he was terminated and february so there wasn't a grievance process that because they had they had raised