where you had any employee seeking to claim benefits under two plans of the employer one plan being a profit sharing plan and the other plan being a they were hourly employees because they were union members and they were subject to a collective bargaining agreement their participation in forth and three point zero five and three point zero five involves hourly employees who transfer to what's called eligible status in other words a salaried employee a three point zero five is not included in the definition of income accrual service under section one point zero two and therefore may not be used under the transfer from hourly the salaried and not permitted five says employees transferring into the plan that would be york your client's wrecked shall be given credit for all of his prior employment with mace and i don't the same basis as employees at the time they transferred it was represented to them as well briefed in and our papers that they would be entitled to receive both the union plan and the  salary plan without offset the highlights pressure was presented to them which was consistent with it mentioned in one offset but that was solely a social security offset not an offset for union benefits so all of the information prior to our employees taking on this position was that other employees were getting both benefits without offset the actual ambiguous terms of the plan support our client position that they were three point zero five employees so therefore their accrual service and their service was not defined quote capital a capital s accrual service under one point zero two for purposes of applying  offset so therefore that the plan actually cuts our way now our argument is ok if it doesn't cut our way if yes for some reason there is a three point zero five should have been plan and employer transfers to the company becomes just one quote shall be given past service and future service close call how do you read that how why is that not  providing an interpretation of what a cruel service that is that is consistent with what we're seeing so if the purpose here was to induce you have you had lumber man up in you  insufficient managers and nurses set forth on the final step position they needed a reason to induce these hourly employees who were getting gobs of overtime to become management people they used and  these hourly employees could get two pensions that's what three point zero five somebody says that's how they read it they agreed that if you transfer into eligible status you get past service in future service but for purposes of asset which is ninety in the ninety's i think it was ninety and ninety five specific specific part of your plan you say prevents under three or five point the prior and future service being cruel service what is into the plan if they had been full time salaried employees from the day they started work that's what gives them their dinner past service and futures are that's correct and that's what i sour employee but he got credit for forty two years as a salaried employee costs three point zero five says you will be given a call service as if you had been employed by a mason i from  as a soured employee that's the way it works at the very end again and trepanning claims you have to read the whole point to bring it all together that's exactly what judge fountain did she went through each one of it into this with perfect symmetry it works together ese employees were in before they came into this one was not a covered plan other words it was a union plan and somehow or other it should be excluded if you recall that that comment he may come is not supported by the r pointed out i don't see the reference to three point zero one or three point zero three but i do see that he shall be given accrual service as a contributory participant that accrual service there is using the capital and the capital  s my point is that if the union employees under three point zero five who are getting their cruel service under three point zero five were meant to have their plan deducted one would expect one point  to refer to three point zero five second of all that the point that mr barr made that that makes and i contributed to the teamsters plan by virtue of the collective bargaining agreement i think i think our argument is bolstered by the fact that it's to which a control group member contributes present tense not contribute ted pursuant to some kind of collective bargaining agreement that had some global hourly rate for union employees and the tenants in five point two is contributes thereby suggesting present tense as opposed to the prior collective bargaining and agreement on the contribution on the part from from from that particular tell us that the teamsters plan wasn't even relevant to any of this that it was it was it was somehow to be disregarded it personal it's a it's an indirect way of making a contribution because the contributions required by the collective bargaining agreement it's the contributions are being made or we're being me it's best probably as part of an overall into the larger fun and in the but the employees get the credit for that technically i believe the contributions would have been made by the union so i would dispute that but i believe the contributions made by the employer are simply part of the overall agreement and that the union makes the contributions so i would disagree with that with the with the court like to hear me on attorneys fees out of time i think we understand your advice i just want you the standard of i disagree vehemently counsels referring to the ip plan and my clients were denied