lso he didn't consider any of the factors required in determining the length of the suspension but also ask you just hypothetically you know it's really i mean normally the table of penalties doesn't go up that high you're not going to mean that that number somehow makes the one and he could consider right correct we're not we're not arguing that he theoretically could have considered this length of a suspension of him but can you just hypothesize generally what would be sufficient i mean that it's hard for even the distinction of say if we said somebody picked thirty as opposed to forty five dollars days and those are normal things but here we've got even a larger range how does one possibly articulate something that's not arbitrary to justify the difference between fifty thousand five hundred and sixty one and i think i understand your question and issues not whether or not he he know again it says he did so was that also true of green street i mean in this case it does say something right he said is based on the entire record in this matter and clearly he's already said he's already looked at the spectre's he knows what the douglas factors are so he says based on the entire record in this matter appears as reasonable punishment for well i'm not so at least he says that so and and he does set to say that based on the entire record in the matter that an extended suspension is warranted or he doesn't define what that extended suspension is and this is a very it is almost identical to the language used by the arbitrator in green street where the arbitron greenstreet said that based on the douglas factors again a substantial suspension is the maximum reasonable penalty in both cases the arbitrators are saying that removal is unwarranted and that some sort of suspension is warranted however they're not saying what what the length of that suspension however there are factors that you should consider in determining the length of the suspension and you know one of the key factors in douglas is compared and here we believe that the arbitrator actually did consider competitors when determining the length of the suspension as opposed to whether removal is warranted at all he would have determined that a shorter suspension was appropriate and again the arbitrariness is sort of make clear when you when you review how the suspensions lads was actually determine if i'm not an arbitrator may review the factors and determine that a five hundred and sixty day suspension or you know five hundred and sixty three dollars day suspension is is warranted but at least he will then have gone through the factors and and the decision would be based on when he issued his decision because that because that's the key here he could have issued his decision a one hundred days later and the suspension would have been six hundred and sixty one days he could have theoretically issued it earlier saying he's prohibited from using the bat that you know the agency comes close to having been justified in moving this person and therefore we just don't think that paper would be appropriate in this circumstance even though i think he should be reinstated so you think that's an inappropriate consideration i'm not necessarily but that's not you know it's likely that's not the issue here and there's a couple of cases that are cited in green street the f g case and all that case which discuss an arbitrator imposing a suspension and not providing back pay however that's a separate you're not limited to just the dumb cost factors you can look at other things and i'm talking about this more as another factor in them and horses not under legal thing about about correcting and he could have looked at that in determining the length of an appropriate suspension and and sort of link to that to what he did over here he does not again if it's based solely on when he issued this decision because you know it scheduling for instance you know we could have scheduled the arbitration earlier in the decision then we would vacated the arbitrator will then do what he was supposed to do and that is actually consider what the length of the suspension should be here we don't believe he actually made that consideration and so again that the chips may fall where they may when it's remanded but we believe it is important that the suspensions land not be arbitrary and that it would be based on some reasoned analysis and i think just should judge walsh said you know if it you know that that analysis is important to us i can a because you alluded to the fact that it seems arbitrary because it's predicated or wise on the time it took for the arbitration so if he had said ok i recognize that seems a bit arbitrary so from the da nobody has control over that so to include that time period in the suspension in your view is arbitrary correct i understand that argument but certain of it is kind of procedural and not arbitrary if you see you for if you take felt the time it certain i understand the question because in a case like this once you invoke arbitration there's a number of sort of factors that play into when the arbitration is actually held in the decision is the question at all that out and  and i apologize that i didn't understand your question about it but that would be less arbitrary and you know again that if it was done with some kind of reasoning it would it would sort of solve the process here problem here and if there is no further questions i'll reserve the right or my time for my impression is that this is important to the american federation of government employees it is also important that is correct it's important to federal employees as a whole however it is also important to the to the petitioner because she could be entitled to additional back pay as well as benefits that she wasn't entitled to legal redress and principle as well beyond greenstreet we think it's a meaningful fine and ok tell me why it's meaningful and not an insufficient step right what he did is he laid out a dog's factor analysis only terminations and then he turns to the suspension and he says for the reasons i put forth and based on the whole record what he's saying is i could copy and paste the analysis i just did as to the appropriate of oprah appropriate penalty in which factors he considered a factor six break compared it to other penalties and factor twelve the appropriate alternate penalty that would to excuse me defer this sort of conduct in other employees so we could have copied and pasted that instead he referenced it i've just done that analysis and i've suspension where's the finding an analysis where he just says i consider the entire record two points in response to the chording greenstreet quote exactly what the arbitrary decision maker i think was the panel did there required by the douglas factors and that a substantial suspension is the maximum reasonable penalty that's what was said there the difference here is the for the foregoing reasons and based on the whole record again it's a small step but we think it's a meaningful s doesn't give the reviewing court anything to a back actors that mean based on the douglas factors does it mean something else the decision maker there doesn't say the difference here is the arbitrator says for the reasons that i've just explained for analyzed the factors but that was in terms of suspension so do you want us to take that one paragraph analysis and say that's also the same analysis that applies to the length of the suspension well i think i think it would have to be because he includes factors six and twelve which wouldn't apply particularly twelve which is the alternate penalty wouldn't apply to the terminations penalty it can only apply to a suspension because it's an alternative sanction  saying we should take that as being the same analysis he necessarily applied to the length of the suspension her seventeen year record i believe you also called out that she's come back to work and she's been able to or she was working while this was going on without showing animus or something else that would suggest that terminations is the only annele t that would be appropriate here it is admittedly a brief analysis we will not say there is more here than there is but it factors terminations would absolutely be appropriate so then he comes to the question of all right what is the penalty that's appropriate and i looked at the penalty sheet that name out of time that has gone by and yes it is i believe this is the right penalty that sort of and i believe the court was previously alluding to there's this sort of length of sentence factor is inherently discretionary and inherently subject to well why not ten days more why not one hundred days more why not a black man why not why doesn't any one have a right to an as to the length of time of the penalty i would say to some extent there's a question of what more should the arbitrator say if the arbitrator puts in one sentence and says therefore i think it's five hundred and sixty three days that i don't think would satisfy the court any more than what he's done shifted this over to sentencing guidelines and what is one i'm sorry i said if we shifted this over to a sentencing guidelines analysis you know criminal procedure it would explode in going to in a flurry of term process i mean my goodness i wouldn't disagree with that well you know i appreciate that i mean the government obviously whoever litigated this did presumably i assume didn't see this coming because the government was advocating for removal wasn't advocating alternatives and justification for those alternatives and citing green street so that the arbitrator would realize you had to put more analysis so i appreciate the position you're in but it's very it's quite difficult yeah and we were asking your friend how much the arbitrator has tried to kill a because you're right i mean it is essentially everything he me i'm just concerned about process or and i recognize that concern and i think to some extent that certainly if the court wants more that if the court can certainly do that and the ar i tempt her to play more but there's i think fundamentally well greenstreet says that you can't have no reasons and what the judge wild had said and he didn't articulate a decision what exactly in this sort of a situation this is a person with seventeen years of unblemished service what else was in there that that they are was examining that he's not telling us because i would think in the norm that person would be out the door so why is there a culture within that sub entity of which she was a part and she was this point merrily along with everyone saying no this is fine don't do it then and she operated under that assumption i don't know but but the arbitrator may him in determining that period of time come back and tell us yes or no this is long and i think it's a big senate hopeful i think the arbitrator's decision does talk about in terms of why determination is inappropriate the fact that this was something that supervisors were aware of and perhaps even encouraged  and certainly the arbitrator when he come as there were a lot of other people and she was a well know there were there were a lot of other people most of them th there's a range of hours between on the low i think in the twenty's in the high over one thousand two hundred dollars everyone above two hundred dollars was either terminated two hundred and ten dollars was either terminated or chose to leave before the sentence when come down so that's i think part of the analysis that the arbitrator references with factor six of how does this compare and the answer is well almost everyone else anywhere near her hours was gone so you know i won't i won't say it's more than a step y arbitrary because that time isn't based on anything other than the scheduling convenience and swiftness of the arbitrators operations that can't possibly have anything to do with what she did and why she did y that i would say the time from when the case was fully submitted and till the time the arbitrator issued cision that we was four months which frankly for a lengthy decision like this did not seem reasonable were the court to determine one demand only that any time after the case is submitted there needs to be a clear articulation of why that period should be tacked on i think that could be a reasonable principle to help guide in the sort of decisions that as as the court said the arbitrator may come back and he may say she stole time on five hundred and sixty four occasions leading to nine hundred hours i think a penalty of one day per occasion is appropriate so that's what i did so we may end up right back where we are with the exact same suspension but certainly telling the arbitrator you've got to explain why those four months should be part of this could certainly be i think that helpful principle that we believe the time you know setting a time there's a tension is arbitrary however i understand your previous question to be that the time between the invocation of arbitration and  the award was you know inherently arbitrary time and that was not four months that was far greater than four months to four months from when from one party summit br invocation of arbitration actually occurred a year prior to the decision so i think that's an important distinction because again the time from indications to the actual decision of is something that has is are entirely unrelated to the conduct and had that the parties had no control over other than through scheduling and so on the other thing i'd like to note is that you know that the factual record is not before the entire factual record not before this court and you know there are a comparative as we believe that would would lead an arbitrator to shorten the suspension then