ignore the regulations of the federal and conciliation service which directs the parties to notify and invoke its services at the beginning not the end of negotiations and if the purpose of article twenty nine dollars section three reasonable that of that interpretation i think that that all part of everybody concerned is bound by the arbitrator evans interpretation of the agreement and i guess our major point arbitrators interpretation of the agreement is as long as the arbitrator on is on its face the arbitration decision on its face purported to interpret the agreement that's the end that's the end of the matter  there was one case from this circuit and i have college eyes that i don't know which of the many cases from the circuit side are brief it was but circuit judge kavanaugh wrote a decision where he claimed clearly not i think your position has tremendous force on the merits of the contract claim but i wonder if we have over that issue why should we this isn't on an odd circumstance where you're the only statutory violation you've alleged is a breach of contract is predicated on violation of the collective bargaining agreement mean you could always turn you've just wiped away entirely the principle that an arbitrator's decision on a contract claim is supposed to get one and only one level of review which is before the f l r a well thank you for asking that question and the answer and we have multiple answers to that it is not a simple breach in none of those three cases did the court was the court's decision on the merits what the court actually reviewed the question of whether or not an unfair labor practice had been committed and if i could explain the st case the overseas education association case that was not what the court reviewed in that case was not whether an unfair labor practice had been committed or whether the f l or i had properly found that there was an unfair labor practice or not in fact there was never any of that was judge stars opinion yes yes and that's the one i have in mind and i'll let you walk me through the other two but that was the case in was different from a contractual grievance quien which proceeded on the arbitrator track in order to trigger in order to prevent splitting up claims that seems to me very different from what your asking us to do here which is review straight away contractual question of breach as opposed to the statutory question  ation i would answer that the in the in the o e a case it was not the there was no discussion of unfair labor practice law or analysis of whether  wrote that the use of the phrase involves quote strongly suggests that something less than a treatment on the merits is required close quote so if treatment if something less than true treatment of the merits is required or is considered at all but in the initial decision the only basis on which the authority found that there was no illegal repudiation was because they found that the agency was privileged in terminating the contract that was the only basis that they found there was no unfair labor practice in its initial decision so with regard to the two other cases in the circuit that reviewed and set aside kavanagh wrote that the substantive question under review was not some one for labor practices issues that arose in the statute but whether the arbitrators ordered that the navy continue to provide its employees with bottled water was consistent with the federal appropriations opened the door to reviewing the f l raise decision on some basis other than whether the u l p had been committed and the ultimate issue of the court decided in each of those three cases did not involve the law of  found that there was no unfair labor practice involved in the arbitration warded set aside but it set aside to be set aside the award on the grounds that the  is clearly a jurisdictional question of whether the authority has grounds to set aside arbitration awards under the statute on something other than the private sector standard as defined by the supreme restriction and therefore we believe they've overstepped their jurisdiction by using a basis other than that which is approved by the the the circuit and the supreme court and in  and assuming we agree with you on the merits of the contract claim right so we reinstate the arbitrator's decision at the employing agency reached a collective bargaining agreement if we get that far do we need to reach the u l p question haven't you gotten full relief at that point well certain a certain additional relief comes with the unfair labor please the court know it pietersen the federal labor relations authority the union in this case is acting this court to do something that has never done before which is to review the merits are of an authority arbitration decision that has no bearing on the law of unfair labor practices this is a question that this court has considered for over thirty years and it has consistently held that for example quoting the after two thousand and six decision at pa statutory scheme the review scheme that was created by congress and there's no warrant for reviewing the authorities order to the extent that it involves for issues of the authorities review of the arbitrator's decision and we extent the order involves u l p and you all have settled authority which allows a complainant to say that p fortunately in this case the union does not even argue that the agency's interpretation of the terminations provision was unreasonable is not an argument that it could make so that it's got to that extent the court would apply  even an argument that this is on reasonable that with his interpretation within reasonable and that's really the end of the matter i mean you can also look to the fact that of course there was no repudiation of the bargaining arrangement with the union  so i understand in the course of deciding u l p statutory question you would permit us to determine whether the employing agency's position on the contract was a reasonable one which is the statutory question under your  permitted only to the extent that you up you are is a drop so to the extent arbitration law is an issue that was the issue in the act two thousand and seven case where the court really how through the distinction directed towards it and there is also a question the question of whether the authority has applied the standard in a matter that justice deferential as a circuit court would have applied it is again would pretty much open the door or unlimited plenary review of the arbitrator of the authority arbitration decisions because it would always be a question of whether the authority had been deferential enough whether it had been too deferential that's precisely the sort of buying brain before briefing which allows for a full blown marriage briefing on the issue which doesn't in any way provide prejudice to the union is fully consistent with the can practice in the order which is we don't want this other issues about whether or not an unfair labor practices been committed i think we disagree that never before has with the claim that never before has the court refuted an arbitration decision on some basis other than the law of the unfair labor practice side we refer back to my opening argument which in which we view that in every case that this court has reviewed and that the lottery decision involving an unfair labor practice it has done so on the basis of some some something other than an for labor practice law on the actual unfair labor practice if we were to examine the amended decision we think that the men the decision itself is a post  rationale that is not even consistent with the authorities or the at all our own case law already laws and i'm comfortable about categorising what's at issue in this case as a breach of the agreement particular breach rises to the level of being patent and goes to the heart of the agreement or on the up and then which case then that's when you look at whether the employer's breach of the agreement was reasonable or not or you could have an entirely different variety which is the more traditional where you were an employer as in this case repudiated the the entire agreement and say and denounce and saying that it was not binding on the employer at repudiated the binding nature of the entire agreement rather than simply breaching an agreement and none of those cases the did the authority analyze whether the breach was reasonable or not and in fact in the make the argument that's made here which is yes we yes this provision goes to the entire contract but we have recently construed it authority of the weather service is breach in this case i just want to go back to section sixteen of the ground rules where which was negotiated pursuant to article twenty nine and subsequent to article twenty nine where the parties subsequently agreed that quote unquote i the party may contact the main vote the services of the f m c s at any time i don't know how i don't know how you read that out of this package and i don't i mean that should that one cause should have been the end of the matter and the authority did not even acknowledge it in its decision and although it was certain that was certainly one of our key arguments opposing the agenc by the employer saying that the web that the weather service was terminating the agreement that was the the the no of the parent agency contacted congress saying that they were that they were no longer going to honor the agreement and that they were terminating