union that represented the u s coast guard license officers and engineers who served as supervisors of board liberty's vessels until september thirtieth two thousand and eleven when their collective bargaining agreement expires at liberty then is  bargaining agreement which thereby would i oust the incumbent union and its members and can compel and secondly to compel liberty our maritime to arbitrate a grievance that we  contend challenges an act that occurred after the collective bargaining agreement expires the district court erred in three ways all of them flow from the application of the standard of review the first two concerns the subject matter jurisdiction of the case was presented to the district court on summary judgment cross motions for but my point is still that our reading of the court's precedent i just read you what our case losses but when the facts are challenged the court is obligated to resolve those factual challenges before relating to the interpretation of performance of this agreement yes how they determine the arbitrator i don't i mean i can't imagine a broader arbitration clause in there i'm not contesting the arbitration clause it at all you're on that or the breadth of it that's not that is not an argument that we've raised at any point zero so our point is simply that the contract our version are the facts we put into evidence from indicated the contract was no longer where based upon the evidence testimony from the unions thirty six witnesses that a primary objective in having this case is to oust the incumbent union right is certain to find force in their country that's what they want  she'd have to do that you bring up regarding the division advices memorandum regarding what the division of advice memorandum bill just referenced the division of advice only looks at the facial the pleading act this is an unusual case where neither the employees issues supervisors nor the union that represents them have rights under the national labor relations act but the employer does under such an eighty one b which i think is very  says supervisors are defined or you agree that the access that employees were employed is not supervisor so an act that excludes supervisors from coverage gives the employer rights you have already supervisors yes it does or in case it says  i can't cite one standing here in front of you but i can tell you the statute i would submit at face value is very clear that it provides an employer the protection from being coerced in the selection of a supervisor for your protection is through your defense move on that the statute is clear and where the statute is clear and i think it speaks for itself that the employer is free from being workers in the statute to rely on for that section eight b reached on the twenty seventh that's my view but the union's publication the tell x times which was issued to its members and it's it's were sees it on september thirt twenty eleven stated what we contend is a correct state of affairs the union rejected all of our demands we were no longer able to agree were a longer heads the contract expired the same day  language does contain reference to him house that's why we argue and we've submitted the evidence that we believe the parties were at a bargain impasse and no longer able to agree bust the expiration on september thirt the time line you get a call you ask for the confirmation that they've done a reversal the next day and they give you that confirmation and tell you that they will they also want to negotiate on the twenty points correct because the subsequent events the days immediately thereafter we expressed our view in writing that the we didn't believe the union's reversal and we extended we stated why and we also stated that the union had told us  no ambiguity that they weren't going to agree with us on all the twenty points which we had insisted on throughout from the beginning of the parties bargain we also advised the union that we would not enter into another extension of the agreement which the parties had done the year before in the absence of any evidence that neither was telling you we've changed our mind will cave on the defined contribution any evidence that they were taped saying the opposite to someone else i mean there's  any evidence doesn't suggest that we've just to clear at a point in time november twenty seventh that's it we're done we had a period of weeks and written back and forth in exchange proposals where we were spinning our wheels forty our view  the facts and finding the union told us we're not going to concede to this major point at that point the company was in the union also was soliciting support for a strike and we were in the process of loading the ships under us government contract that had to they have supervisors aboard for them to operate where they faced penalties under the for failure fulfill their country contractual obligations but  seems to me that that there was this change in the union presidency and so forth that was what six or eight months before yes and they were up until that point me but was saying we're not going to do it we're not into it and then they i think they tell you at least they argue this that their members said we want to keep our jobs i mean at the last minute when they said we're not going to agree to this and they said in the member said well the liberty is looking for help from the am o and so forth we want to keep our jobs why wouldn't it be completely natural for the union to call and say we've got to we've got to cave on this and i mean why would you not believe that we didn't know all those private conversations between the union leadership and the in the supervisors that apparently occurred over the weekend for what we had was a track record th dated back more than a year where promises and argue promises and commitments were made and they weren't fulfilled and we continue getting nowhere if you will we felt we couldn't take the risk of getting past october could no longer withstand the uncertainty of kicking the can down the road we needed to solve these problems which we worked on for more than a year and the union in our view said no no no no yes but no money twenty points and we were literally and i think it's a fair statement we were at a time even though our patients under contract i think it would be different if those shifts were laid up and they weren't going anywhere was a three day arbitration over three months starting in may one day in may two days in july so that's been that's been done it's fully briefed research submitted actually in september thirty two thousand and fifteen exactly four  years after this dispute started now what i'd like to start with is just what what judge edwards had been talking about at bottom this appeal presents the question of whether the district court correctly applied the underlying principles in favor of our labor arbitration first recognized by the supreme court in the steelworkers trilogy and as well the subsequent goddess provided by the supreme court this court and other appellate courts on the question of arbitron believe disputes under a labor contract the union smits the district court decision ordering the parties to arbitration and the reasoning relied on in reaching a decision was wholly consistent with both relevant supreme court president as well as president from this circuit and other on the question of who shall interpret control my contractual to ration provision based on this relevant case law the district court correctly ruled that the interpretation of the duration provision is for an arbitrator not court here there is a you discuss with judge henderson the last few minutes of the presentation was really what happened is that the arbitration there is a dispute that is entered into a valid labor contract and that contract contained a broad arbitration provision that arbitration provision stated that all disputes relating to the interpretation performance of this agreement shall be termed through arbitration there's also a dispute there's also knows you excuse me that there's a the ration here the issue is whether or not the parties reached an impasse and now this interplay between these two contractual issues the in the duration and the arbitration clause was exactly the issue i was presented to this court in national road and that opinion this court confronts the same exact issue of the national railroad decision first recognize the two underlying principle principles of arb building and that's what this the district court to hear first national road said arbitration is a matter of contract you can't make a party submit to arbitration if they didn't agree to but at the same time this court also explained that is it the parties have provided that a particular dispute should be settled by arbitration rather than with a geisha and then a court should not override that agreement and then second this court also recognized the supreme court precedent that unless parties following the where there's a subsequent decision that we submitted on the ninth circuit and in sync decision all those say when you when you have a dispute and there's nothing that carves out the duration provision you look at the arbitration provision if brought it says all disputes i don't think there could be a more broad recognition of that now interestingly leave liberty in their briefs don't do they do not address directly i don't trust at all actually national railroad unite here from the first circuit what they do is they say this is a contract formation he's and as judge it was recognized that's not true and this court and national road specifically recognize there's a difference between contract formation in contract duration contract formations when there's no contract so you can't be sure that the parties agreed here that's not the case liberty concedes there was a valid contract liberty concedes there was a valid arbitration clause brought arbitration clause liberty concedes that the duration clause says what it says what they don't agree on is dispute as to whether or not we are at impasse that is clearly for the arbitrator and in fact that is exactly what the issue was presented to the arbitrator's what issue i think to get it exactly right the district court looked at whether or not there was a contract dispute in followed exactly this court's guidance and national railroad and so the court jurisdiction with respect to the government preemption argument we said this in our briefs we said this to the arbitrator we said this to the district court and we'll say it again today we're not interested in getting the jobs back so there's not there's no issue with respect to that would that doesn't make a difference you we don't think it makes a difference well then why ok we very well what's the point of one just in case the court was your is we're not going to be when i thought you said you know what your job what do you do with a party where all or any more depending on what the job of the arbitrator indicates is relief the bargaining order certainly would discuss the effects of liberties decision and this is an unusual case  once you take a couple minutes when you're on of the of the very brief i would be remiss if i didn't call to the court's attention least what i think is important and was perceptive at the outset of the case and that started sullivan's observation that the issue of impasse was central and while he was quite correct in denying our motion to dismiss because we need to have served there was it was a necessity to develop a fact record on which he would then rule regarding jurisdiction and as well as the merits i i think he was in in his two sentences right on when he said yes the court has to decide impasse is a threshold matter it's not a question in this case for an arbitrary unless there are any questions thank you thank you you thank