after so it will probably be a little liberal on that and we're going to do our best to give you some time right off the bat without interruption to get your points across and then we'll probably hear it to you with some question here please the court again my name is jennifer trejo representing the village of oak lawn in this matter in preparing for a game and today i tried to come up with an overreaching theme if you will that will govern my discussion with you today and the theme that i came up with is that discretion to the role and function of an arbitrator does not mean that an arbitrator gets ahead pass to do whatever it is he or she wants where an arbitration award was reversed and the court is duty bound to a form an arbitration award only when the award draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement and when an arbitrator doesn't exceed the scope of their powers and we don't have those two principles here in fact there are several reasons why this case presents an appropriate instance for reasons to be exact for judicially disturbing this arbitration awarde additionally a second reason the other trader in this case decided issues that went beyond the scope of this particular grievance and that's in violation of the collective bargaining agreement third in endeavoring to interpret section seven  nine of the collective bargaining agreement and that's the provision of the agreement that is labeled minimum meaning the arbitrator actually really wrote the contract it added to it put things in the contract that are in there and that of is also violative of this particular collective bargaining agreement and finally the a word issued by the arbitrator violates paramount considerations of illinois public policy it is for those for reasons that we are seeking to reproduce and have the submitted vacated either in her or in part and all explaining these issues in greater detail as a student the union failed to comply with the grievance processing procedure set forth in sections four point two and four point four of the collective bargaining agreement and as a consequence you are betrayed or lacked jurisdiction to to consider the merits of th the problem is that strip the site of a trader of jurisdiction to consider the merits of the grievance occurred in step three and four of the grievance processing procedure at the set forth in detail in our brief and the subpoena was in this issue is and i don't mean it to be as dry as toast but there are a couple of facts that are key to understanding this procedural arbiter billet he issue a step three meeting as defined in the contract occurred between the village manager and union officials on february seventh two thousand and eight for nearly two months after that meeting no activity occurred with respect to this grievance nothing not until march twenty fourth two thousand and eight when a letter was sent from the union's president to the village and that letter had three purposes it inquired into the status of the grievance and noted that an answer had not been issued after the step three meeting the letter also sought to reset the grievance if possible and finally the letter threatened to pursue arbitration in the event the grievance could not be resolved following on march twenty fourth rather on march thirty first the village manager penned a letter back to the morning indicating that indeed he had not issued a step three answer he didn't see that one was necessary because he agreed with the step to answer that had come before it at that time in that letter the village manager also noted that it was the villagers position that the time frame within which the union could move the grievance forward into arbitration had already lapsed the next letter that comes in the sequence of events is an april deciding that he had jurisdiction to consider the grievance made several inconsistent findings the first of which the arbitrator says the union had an absolute right to receive a step three answer from the village of the collective bargaining agreement the problem with that finding is that it's not supported by the collective bargaining agreement the quite a bargaining agreement contains a section at section four point four it's entitle time limits and that provision states that if the village fails to provide an answer any particular step in the grievance process but the union me appeal to the next step reading section four point two of the was section four point four the village submit that it was incumbent on the union after the ten days passed for mr de ching to send to step three insert to the union for the union to then invoke answer the problem with that is that if you look at the contents of the letter it says i never issued a step three answer also mr de chine testified at the arbitration hearing but he never issued to step three answer another problem with this finding another finding that the arbitrator made was that the union's march twenty fourth letter constituted a timely indication of arbitration under step three war well that's inconsistent with the arbitrator's finding that there had to be a step three insert before there could be invocation of arbitration under step through or so but the way that the arbitrator resolved out the procedural arbitrarily issue it's littered with in consistencies and it can't stand was there a way for the village to object to even selecting an arbitrator because of the procedural failure well not necessarily because we're not contesting that that was an appropriate issue for an arbitrator to determine at the outset we had told the the union that we had an issue that we were going to raise with the arbitrator we were grueling the collective bargaining agreement and here in this procedural arbitrary issue i don't buy the argument i just like to see a case that that says that and i want to make sure i got it straight so one of those the suit case or the other case you m draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement the problem here is that on this particular issue the finding doesn't draw its essence from the collective bargaining agreement in fact it ignores provisions in the collective bargaining agreement if you were section four point four because four point four words in title time limits that means there is a time frame within which the human must act to move the grievance forward it's not a grievance for means perpetually buyable there are things that have to be done the word draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement and you can find the or the trigger did not exceed his or her powers and it's that problem that we have here so i think yes it still room with deference should not be abuse of discretion about it's a difficult thing it is it is and there isn't a case that either side has pointed to that necessarily addresses this issue the case that we cited in our standard of review section in our brief was  that is the it's the illinois state police versus fraternal order of police troopers watch number forty one case and it was a conducting of a dyno review of a trial court summary judgment order that denied a motion the arbitrator found that best efforts that term was not defined as used in section seven point nine b of the contract and because of that the arbitrator believed that he had the right to look at evidence including testimony that he heard at the arbitration hearing about the party's past practices and that testimony came from the former fire chief of the village chief macaskill on the problem with that finding is that s seven point nine b talks about minimum meaning in terms of apparatus minimum manning and the way the contract reads it's if an ample rattus is in service we would put this many individuals on that particular apparatus that would be ever treated determined to read section seven point nine the village is stuck employing twenty one employees on every shift it's a stagnant number no matter what the circumstances are the village can't change it twenty one voting employees on every shift do and the arbitrator found that all fire apparatus is have to be in operation at all times there is not an option for the village to take an apparatus out of service to the the numbers that are set forth and section seven point nine b we are as the testimony as there isn't well the best well the testimony that goes to best efforts really came from the village manager if anywhere larry di chang talking about distribution yes the budget constraints of the village and that given that the village was facing in the year two thousand and seven a two million dollars budget deficit the fire department in two thousand and seven transcript he didn't give any opinion about the contract and its use of the language of best efforts but we have an arbitrator that's determined that the ring which is ambiguous we don't think it is there we are in that provision does but it's not ambiguous at all that the provision provide state if a particular piece of equipment is in operation we will use our best efforts it says we will maintain and use our best efforts to maintain the following apparatus minimum manning the cry ments it's not a shift minimum meaning it says apparatus and that's something we have a trader here overworked i want to make sure i touch upon very quickly when you apparatus minimum manning and one thing that is in the record for instance there was negotiations and some testimony about contract negotiations for us collective bargaining agreement to be in effect from two thousand and seven to two thousand  and one of the proposals that went back and forth between the village and the union was a proposal to put in the contract a provision that say well employee twenty one people on every shift but that's not what this contract says that's not what the are three o that but as it is now we're stuck with this notion from this arbitrator we're stuck with twenty one employees on every shift and we can never take an apparatus out of service not ever not for any circumstances we have no leeway  also a very strong argument that we have the one with labor relations act section four were specifically talks about matters of inherent managerial policy and standards of service levels of   in that again there is this notion that because of this contract we have a stagnant level of employees that must be on shift at all times we have no way to take out an apparatus from service and we believe this finding interferes with our public policy writes the illinois general assembly is according to the village to run its department i don't know that section three point one in the collective bargaining agreement it's a management rights provision that talks about  it says the village has the right to determine the standards of service offered to the public to direct the working forces to play direct control and determine the operation of fire department services so we'd also contend that the arbitrators finding that there's th why is all this information about the different apparatus of the the number of people to work on them why is it in the agreement it's because the two parties clearly disagree about what the agreement sads we don't view it as a shift minimum meaning provision it's an that's i must be missing something if you can help me out i and i want to make sure i understand your question the the problem i think the produce disagree the union is going to say that the contract provides a shift minimum manning it talks about do you mean minimum sixty we'll get section seven point nine a but then in section seven point nine b there is the notion of best efforts to maintain apparatus minimum manning requirements if we want to if it was a shift provision it would say that but it doesn't look let's say it would say it's not a shift provision and we have two paramedics per ambulance there were twenty four hours i don't want to necessarily delve into the cross appeal issues until i've had a chance to hear what the young man's attorney has to say i'm more than happy to answer any other questions you payout about my appeal the villages appeal correct and so it's but when you are dealing with a twelve eighteen and twenty four that would have given you fifty four bodies that you were people mixed up somehow and if you divide it by ship it would have been seventeen people or  she is there right i believe south looking and if you divided it by a station it would have been five point six six people first asian version in testimony that were originally for instance there were i think three people banging on the scribe and then there was an agreement struck between it you know the union in the village that was a memorial i still writing to produce a scribe to two people i guess  my question goes to whether this there was ever any agreement about how many people were going to be in the square because they appear to agree with two people with poor people at one point i think department from changes on the board of trustees of the village to insulate the department from economic changes he did not want the fire department running on shift with less than twenty one people being employed broken and getting on forever no just the option that if you don't have sufficient personnel that day to run the school audit the power and then the people running this one of the squad is a search and rescue out from the division chief and the department chief that talked about the scenarios that the village was going to work with to me and equipment with less than twenty one individuals on shift and i think that might be what you're referring which is the management rights clause in the agreement that talks about that the village has the right to determine the level of service and to determine how the fire department is going to operate so  could the village then decide you know what this whole squad thing we don't need any more let's just bail on that that will save us you know hundred fifty thousand dollars a year of course there would come a point i had a feeling i was can get asked this community and pay them we need they could happen that's not what happened here anyway i would have a much harder case to make if that's what did happen you know admit bad realistically the residents of the village may have some is that the contract it's an ambiguous it talks about an apparatus minimum manning requirement the fact that there's best efforts language in it i would submit to you means it's not mandatory it's that we will use our best efforts when any ambulance is in service to make sure that there are two people on it when an engine is in service we're going to do our best to make sure we've got a firefighters assigned to that but this notion that there's a requirement that twenty one people must be on shift and we can never take an apparatus out of service is not in this contract and by finding other guys we believe the arbitrator to review the contract it wasn't there and that wasn't believe so but they need to look at the record i'm not sure that that grievance ever got fully processed based on this survey trader's decision in this case your argument that this particular grievance is only a school and how it's being in or out of service service you still have to speak into it but it doesn't make you any lower case because thank you thank you i just remember a lot to cover and they'd like to start out with the judicial review of arbitration awards there were some decided by the lower court the trial court on summary judgment judicial review of labor arbitration cases is extremely limited i don't think there's any dispute the award pass could be enforced if the  acts within the scope of his authority and the award draws its absence from the clock to bargaining agreement and i would urge the court to take a look at the asked me versus department of central management services have used that one what it really needs to look at is did the arbitrator in fact analyze the contract looking at it interpret it and in last no reasonable mind could draw that same conclusion that award must be upheld the standards are derived from public policy considerations that be or should be finality of arbitration awards and it's not surprising that there aren't a lot of cases on this in illinois and simply because as the federal courts have made clear in these cases you better have a viable case if you're going to use the court system to try and overturn an arbitration award with this background i'd like to briefly go through the underlying board in this case and talk on each issue as to why it's properly confirmed by the circuit court and ultimately why sanction should have been awarded pursuant to section one thirty case the issue of whether the grievance was timely as counsel concedes was properly before the arbitrator he had the authority to resolve the issue in doing so he looked it at step for the part receiving the answer in step three he also looked at section four point four the contract and in they at it said the village fails to provide any answer within the time limits the union may may appeal there was no step three answer from the village and the arbitrator found that the village in absence was asking him to write in language into the contract which pursuant to section four article four of the contract he's pretty effective from doing specifically he spelled out that the village wanted him to read into the contract that the union had to invoke arbitration within ten calendar days of cases the steel workers trilogy cases all these cases support a long historical doubt contention that doubts as to whether or grievances our patrol must be found in favor settle a variety of grievances and quote this offer is meant to bring about resolution to a number of outstanding grievances and in the absence of resolution notified the village that l that's what this is as the letter was notifying the village that if you don't accept the settlement pozole that we are here by invoking arbitration of the grievance and that's exactly what they did the arbitrator in analyzing the latter sat on march twenty fourth the union in probed arbitration if there was a step three answer which mr de chine claim there was not it didn't the village has taken a number of inconsistent positions with respect to whether or not there was a step three answer depending on what form it spent but we don't need to get into whether there was a step three months or by virtue of the march thirty first letter because the every trader found in excuse me that before the march thirty first letter the union had already in progress arbitration the award on this issue plainly drew a test since from the contract  what he did and he interpreted the contract and he found a ten day period runs from her seat to step three that the union if there was a step three had invoked arbitration for receipt of the act and it was no basis for the court to interfere with the arbitrator's interpretation of article four of the contract that just one note very quickly because there was some reference to a letter that is found in the four thirteen of the mutually agree or a letter goes to federal mediation and conciliation services requesting a panel of arbitrators my equal seventeen letter found at sea for thirteen is not a letter and poking arbitration it's a ladder after people in for overtime they raised the other coals that had been violated including our to call section seven point nine any and they also said to me excuse me that they were not complying with the minimum meaning requirements on the squad and otherwise this grievance was not limited to the squad this grievance clearly raise minimum meaning requirements and how section seven point nine subsequent to january one two thousand and eight which was the date the squad was were shut down and otherwise correct or wasn't there another grievance of the fire engines for example it was wasn't a consolidation the employer refused to consolidate and based on me at we tried the first case which is the one before you once we got the decision of necessity there was no need to try the second case because the grievance was the the it was the single grievance that went before the arbitrator not consolidated with nat consolidated because although the union believed both grievances addressed the same issue of minimum meaning it sought on to the collective bargaining agreement in the grievance mechanism to consolidate them the employer refused to consolidate them so we then proceeded with the first case which is what's before the court here the second y one was mooted it was mooted out by virtue of the first decision or are you saying that the arbitrator decided to or two grievances when only one was in front of him no clearly he decided the issue that was raised events on the and chance stemmed from something else but the grievance pertaining to the engines was also part of this particular prevent sets before us because we were talking about failing to maintain minimum the ending on equipment in addition to the squad he quote and otherwise language and we put in evidence in this proceeding a multiple all orders that that had been issued after january one zero eight where they kept changing how many people would be on the engine how many people would be on the squad and employer refusing the consolidation and then ultimately it becoming mooted you dressed in your brief no because it's not before quite honestly it's not before this court i think it's beat it's become an issue but it's not before this court the question is based on the record here and to the arbitrator how the authority to reach the issue of minimum manning as he did and it's the union's position now based on the pace of the grievance based you respectively mr cabot as to what does the contract say doesn't that a daily minimum or doesn't it it's the primary issue in this case murrell her and noteworthy not only did the attorney and the two were tourney's present both mate to separate law firms both late labor management attorneys both sat there and said this issue is before you i don't know how you can come to this court now and say if he didn't have authority also the union poses the issue for the arbitrator to resolve in the case the union said the issue before you mr arbitrators whether the village violated section seven point nine of the agreement and or the parties past practice by unilaterally modifying the minimum be any requirement below twenty one personnel and in turn staffing equipment below the contractual requirements and if so what's the appropriate remedy even the arbitrator said the village didn't post an issue that the village sat silent it could have raised its own issue it could have said at that time you don't have the word to resolve they had issue here's what we pose is the issue but the arbitrator said that based on the record that was the proper framing of the issue before me basically judge martin found that the grievance with extremely bro raised all of these topics and the village placed the issue before the arbitrator they agreed to allow the arbitrator to resolve the issue and he had absolutely no basis to disturb that finding quickly on the interpretation of section seven point nine again if any theories from mind could have made the interpretation of the contract the arbitrator made then this court cannot find that the arbitrator disregarded the contract and the award has to be upheld basically the arbitrator methodically went through section seven point nine the minimum meaning provision he looked at the first paragraph section seven point nine a it talked about minimums it talked about over time he says and now in in finding that there is a minimum i need to take a look at section eight he went through section b he determined that there was an ambiguity the fact that somebody else doesn't think there's an ambiguity isn't the issue here he found in the ambiguity and consistent with the principles that he even noted to determine the mutual intent of the parties and contractual provision if it have to turn to outside sources traditionally in labor arbitration those outside sources are addressing that we as a reviewing court lack the power to decide whether he was right or wrong in finding ambiguity correct and the last no reason for mine could make that interpretation efforts and he said look at i listened to the uncontested testimony of the former cheap who was the one who proposed the contractual language i'm interpreting he's told me what best efforts meant and if you look at the transcript former chief mccaskill and uncontested testimony talked about best efforts he talked about safety he talked about why he needed minimum meandering on the shift and why and how he arrived at that he went through all of that testimony he also looked at fifteen years of past practice which is also used as a basis to interpret the mutual intent of the parties he cited cravat cited he says talking about how w e interpret contractual language if you believe it seem pick us and after fifteen years of constantly having a certain i'm minimum of twenty two which is why if it goes below you have the overtime provision kick in and seven point nine a and that's where he got to the daily minimums and what he said is that when i look at the past practice of fifteen years of constantly having twenty two except by agreement of the party in th parties in the last ten years they permitted it to go down union permitted to go down to twenty one with two on the squad instead of three on the slide again because the employer came to the union and asked for a change in it and the union acquiesced to that change he basically said look it's clear what this the mutual intent of these parties was it was to have a daily minimum staffing and it was to have apparatus staffing and i have to read everything as a whole and he dissected that entire language he used accepted principles of contract interpretation and again the bill was just position is nothing more than i don't agree with the interpretation i the village shall not exercise its rights inconsistent with or in conflict with other provisions of this agreement typically in collective bargaining agreements we have a broad me interim rights was and then any specific provision in the contract could limit those rights here there is no question that the operations of the particular employer how many they have on duty at minimum per day minimum apparatus those are restrictions of me enjoyment rights because management and the union negotiated those provisions in looking at seven point nine a the agreement says sufficient personnel and apparatus should shall be maintained in a state of readiness of all times are you telling us that the village would like to rewrite this to say sufficient personnel or every of us is that what they are trying to do here by saying that they can take apparatus out of service well you know quite honestly i think the village is attempting to rewrite the entire section seven point nine in more than just and apparatus now i need to look at what that means and that's when he turned to seven point nine b an appropriate chimpsky i know you asked a question regarding the meaning of seven point nine c in the numbers worked adding up some point nine feet is merely these are the minimum that you're supposed to maintain the clock in the bargaining unit is well in excess of those numbers the bargaining unit although it's built somewhat is around the eighty range now so it's not a question that that's all you have to have but i just want to make sure we understand that the bargaining unit is substantially larger than  have with within the parameters of public safety and public service equipment apparatus and personnel and the personal is defined but the epper of this is not well this is  sense in answer to the question doesn't say how many engines does it and the answer is the answer is no the question was for squads and his answer was no wouldn't that be as important testimony as him just a testimony about the past practice under who incidentally was the person who testified the union is my folks because he used to be in the union for all right i'm so used protecting his guys understandable now he's the fire chief and the village manager at the time he was negotiating this contract and wants to make sure he has his guys his keep all play out here over right but in answer to the specific question just the country require a specific number of entrants know this it requires funds no so aren't we supposed to look at the at with this much importance it's his testimony about the past practice well i think what he was saying was that the contract it doesn't say a specific number ok for example it says on each engine for employees that's the language and then he testified they act we have x number of engines times for equal rights to twelve person now and then he said i'm each a l s e ambulance and i think are just strip it and i think he also talked about what best efforts meant and he said that look at i could see that there was a scituate there could have been a situation unlike the situation that the subject matter screens but there could be a situation where some incident occurs a structure fire would have or where i have to move my twenty one people around and if i don't need the squad is going as i have my twenty one on a  case situation i could design as i hear my minimum meaning change the operation on the given day that was clearly what his best effort was and his clear testimony was i have to have the twenty two and this is how i am supposed to use it use them my best efforts are to use them on this equipment so she can stand and all the other witnesses were testifying that really it doesn't make too much difference what the equipment is as long as it twenty two bodies here over time bargained over how many people should be on the piece of equipment they've gone into this with my people and i i mean i'm sure there's been occasion where they fund with more than the minimum i don't think they're the the squads and because of dropping the supply it's the minimum manning has changed because of the squads being out in the equipment has changed because of the squads being out and they haven't used overtime to object people to run the squads because the squads being  at the face the grievance is did you know judge martin he said this is an extremely broad grievance it talks about minimum manning throughout it talks about squads and otherwise there was a number of exhibits showing how they were reducing manning on the engines in the arbitration no objection from the employer yet evidence is all in the record below and daily basis representing the in for a or that's because the issue was the war on and it was before him based on the scope of the green vans actually on page forty three of the testimony of the village said we see the issue is this did the village violate the contract was the village required to send personnel to operate a squad did the village violate the country by not calling from the over time list again i believe that they were talking exclusively about the squad in the squad is the only issue of this reasons but that's not what he says later on he says did they have to call in for overtime you know make it with a swat if you if you look at it you're looking at it one way i'm looking at it and saying the fire situation where a party makes a objection at the beginning of a trial a motion in limine a and makes a statement as to what the issue is and then the case is tried and other issues are brought into it and there's no objection there's not an objection made how can the party later on complain about it that's exactly right when you tell the arbitrator you have the authority to do this and the arbitrator looks have a technical objection they stated at the beginning of the proceeding and then all of the evidence comes in and they never objected waive your get your arbitrating something else here with this is not what we're here to do business never came up that never came up and how would anybody know where does anybody know or can you tell me whether this particular grievance over you know was the subject of any of those continuing discussions yet and one was the final meeting that would have resulted in a step three letter the final meeting well and then to what the arbitrator was saying isn't just there it was a step there is no question it was a step three meeting on i believe february tapped and then there were continuing meetings and they were continu it because it was literally a step three meeting where the union comes in and presents it side and it hears everything there is no question that february tenth with the step three he ok but then there were other meetings about the scream and after that parties would have discussed the grievance and he would just sad i'll let you know you know whether we're granting it a war or denying it that was february tap the fact that parties frequently  beyond that step three needing settlement discuss anything else regarding the grievance would not constitute a step three meeting within the meaning of the clock to park and it doesn't change the date of the structure does not change the date correct  can i quickly talk about one thirty seven i should and i know i'm well beyond my time i just want to know one thing with respect to the supreme court rule one thirty seven i think we've only brief because some by the way the public policy decision i think we fully briefed the labor board has recently made to determination on the public policy issue that may ending is a mandatory subject of bargaining this arbitrator biber lation sack firefighters have no right to strike and they are for because they have no right to strike they have to go to final and binding interest arbitration we are an arbitrator formulates the terms of the final contract parties are currently operating under an expired contract this village could come in and make a proposal to change sex and section seven point nine it could raise an interest arbitration it's budget issues it could raise anything else that it felt supported the change in section seven point nine but it is that forum that it has to be done not through this court not through the lower court not through the the arbitrator who interpreted the language in the contract public policy i mean a trend right is not public policy the public policy in the state is found in section two of the collective illinois public labor relations act and the public policy is the safety policy cases are overturned on public policy reasons for safety reasons generally if you look at the cases this arbitrator promoted safety by making sure that there was sufficient me any sufficient apparatus not only for the safety of the firefighters at the have agreed with the decision but it's pretty clear out there of seventh circuit cases have made it clear in this court she and you have a tyson or has pretty much fought that rule levon one thirty seven interpretation  the kinds of cases that you've heard in the court we may disagree with who was right and who was wrong but the arbitrator clearly ruled and in a manner which should have been  which was what is interesting to note is and i would urge you to look at the positions of the village throughout this case the that have changed over time and there are some charts in our brief that show the changing of it when i when judge martin ruled on the sanctions issue under one thirty seven he made a finding that you didn't play in this summary sentence that there was bad faith but that's not the standard here the standards set out in the briefs but i urge the court to look and act the villages response to the sanction motion in the case follow pages see nine forty seven just the nine fifty four which is the plaintiff's response for local thirty four zero five motion for sanctions and in setting forth its arguments the village says at page six of that actual motion the village did not seek to change the and arbitrator cravats is interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement i think that's why we're here we're here because they have to challenge the trooper taishan of the entire proceedings have been misrepresentations to the court below there was a letter that's the subject to me either of biased notion that bias which was an argument made before the trial court that the arbitrator was biased  is not before the court here and it wasn't until the final review of the village on appeal here that they finally came up with an excuse as to why the inconsistent positions were being taken and that is we change counsel your yarns at this point in time i don't care if you have one council or in this case we've now had work council representing the village from two from different firms and now with third farm the record below is the record below there's a standard to be applied and i think a message from this court house could be just as the seventh circuit message has been out there and th guess do not bother our backload with cases of this nature there is a very high standard and you know what the standard is we shouldn't be here i think that judge martin  there was no grounds to bring this case it was no grounds to bring the case before the court and here we are and again i urge one way to get rid of work backlog is to send a message to litigants that arbitration awards the public policy of the state is to uphold them and you better hair buyable daily basis for bringing it before the court today thank  can't say anything else here on rebuttal i have to emphasize that the notion that the village sat on its hands and allowed the arbitrator to rule on issues about engine manning and shift manning and said nothing about it is absolutely absurd and it's not supported by the record in addition to the dialogue that counsel quoted i'd like to point out to the court some other instances in the record that are in our brief record volume three  hundred forty six seventy five is another set of dialogue where the village attorney tried to emphasize to the arbitrator that the scope of this grievance was quite narrow and didn't involve issues of engine meaning and shift minimum mann kareen i mean the transcript here the hearing transcript is three hundred plus pages and she's pointing out one she's she's reading her reading one instance of dialogue between the arbitrator  the villages attorney to suggest the village sat on its hands and didn't say anything and was ok with the arbitrator issuing decisions on those issues we absolutely were not another dialogue pointing out it's an  instance where a quirk could review and scrutiny an arbitration award they're coming here and telling you yeah i mean they'll find this i understand i just want to emphasize that point that you know clearly there are instances where it's appropriate we were ok i also wanted to just briefly speak on the notion there were some questions raised about when the step three meeting occurred it's a discrepancy but it's february seventh two thousand and eight was when the step three meeting happened and all of the discussion about that there were settlement negotiations ongoing that's not memorialized anywhere in this record there was nothing that happened from february seventh to march twenty four as far as the record go i'm counsel talked about ongoing settlement discussions but it's just not there if the court doesn't have any additional any additional questions for me i'm willing to rest on the briefs i do want to say just a couple of things about the rule one thirty seven issue i think the fact that we argued for an hour here without that even coming up is indicative that it's not the overturned and this isn't karuna this isn't the seventh circuit case it's a two thousand and six case it's cited in their brief there's been no illinois case in five years that said we waken and we're going to follow what the seventh circuit did in khulna i think if y other questions on that point i'll rest on my briefs on that issue thank you for your attention great job by both of you will take it under advise