section six point six of the trust agreement which provides a broad grants although for a day to arbitrate any obligation claim or liability of the trust fund  head says trust these powers with respect to obligations liabilities or claims why shouldn't i read that provision as simply authorizing the trustees to engage in arbitration on behalf of the trusts and then look to seven point one three to determine what types of arbitrations or what types of claims may be arbitrated i think the reason is  language inception six point six itself which provides for arbitration of quote any obligations liability or claim involving this trust and quote and clearly a claim for losses are rising from the coverage of these ineligible individuals is that a liability or claim involving the trusts but counsel you're reading out of the sentence the portion you just quoted to me you're read that clause as modifying the power of the trustee as opposed to defining the scope of what types of claims may be arbitrated am i missing something here well if they if the trustees have thing authority to i bitrate in general any claim liability or obligation and then there must be a way that they can do particular type of arbitration not all claims arising under the gruman as you pointed out section six point one six talks about all claims arising under the expert harmonized and in addition to the general reference to claims for delinquent contributions in the preamble to section seven point one three the of seven point one three that that is part of seven point one three but if you look at that language it says that that the arbitrator chain rule that contributions are delinquent  that the employer has not fully complied with all trust fund requirements and by speaking coverage for ineligible individual thing employer is not fully compliant with all trust funds requirement their obviously they arbitrator can't rule that an employer has not fully complied with all transponder requirements unless he has to get the phone ready to do that and this is all in section seven point one three itself to get back to judge paez this question if that is how the arbitrator determines the award of attorney's fees how does that help us answer the question as to the scope of the expedited arbitration provision in the subsections of the because that the arbitrator obviously would need to have the authority to make this ruling that there hasn't been compliance with all trust fund requirements that's not my question my question is how do we carve out those claims that are subject to arbitrary expedited arbitration from other claims that may be subject to an expedited and i think way to me how the how the trustees interpreted the term delinquent contributions to include losses arising from improper contributions there were a can define delinquent contributions one is late contributions the second is unpaid contributions and the third is erroneous contributions and the latter that is the ball right that's correct well that that's the part the time to speak evil made with the exception of what was a two thousand dollars able made contributions on behalf of workers in southern california the trust now says we're not obligated to provide  contributions to include these are going to his contributions and i think that it made clear from the preamble to the link when contributions in the preamble there is a  question along the same is it reasonable to say that that well you know when you read when you read this trust agreement and the provisions that we've been dealing with the use of the term contributions seems to the trust agreement together six point six seven point one three d seven point seven and you look at it all together that these are matters that are subject to arbitration this happens to our rights under section seven point one thr if you read that section it specifically refers to excess contributions by employer employers paying too much for a given employee or employees and it specifically delineates what the procedures are for the  contributions over payments by the by the employer but if i understand your opponent's argument if we have set of premises that expedited arbitration whether that has some special meaning or not i was designed to ensure the solvency of the fund so that any just views that might impact the solvency would be quickly resolved through arbitration why wouldn't it be reasonable to adopt her interpretation of delinquent broaden that that meaning if it's ambiguous and it's not ambiguous and the turndown i can't contribution if you look at black's law dictionary and even look at the in the trust document specifically refers to unpaid contributions and i referred in our in our brief to section eight point eight of the trust indenture which specifically addresses how payments are to be made how the contributions are to be made and that if the payments are not received by the trust fund by a certain date they are concerned they shall be considered delinquent as i read that and i think as the lower court read that that is the definition of delinquent what you do with these other provisions in seven one three the council pointed out seven point one three d for example seven one three yes d and i think there's another one i believe that i believe that was the only the very the last five words in the in that section specifically say say that employers shall be deemed the quote loser for purposes of this provision this provision in section seven point one three which is specifically limited fault and i don't recall that that was part of the argument in their brief but turning to the section six point six which they also rely on is kind of confirming some broad power to arbitrate i think the significance of that  it doesn't confer any rights or obligations or duties on the part of the employer and when you have an agreement to arbitrate you have to have an agreement by the parties to are to arbitrate particular agreements and points i i just think the title of that section and the way it's worded refers to the powers that are given to them it doesn't it doesn't specify that arbitration of claims  case that judge lake appeared to be very interested in is the fact that abel was making paint in the engineering was making payments and the trust fund was accepting  so so it's kind of a situation where is if there were no claims paid out for these particular individuals probably nothing would have happened the trust fund would have kept the premiums that were paid by able  are to enforce the payment of any contributions or other amounts payable or recover recoverable here under what why couldn't the fine contributions to because that that would be contrary to the to the plain meaning of that term contribution contribution as used in this agreement and in the policy statement refers to the payments that employers make on a monthly basis for eligible  employees and that's clear throughout the stock minutes there on the policy documents and just the plain meaning of the term contribution is that they're contributing to the trust for the benefit of the employees  so i mean i think that the and any interpretation other than that just isn't recent it just doesn't take into account just the plain meaning of the term contribution correct even though it's not clearly defined in the well refers to the issue of contributions and the second paragraph starting with all employer contributions to the trust fund shall be due on the tenth day of the calendar month that specifies the wrote ruled on a different ground and he didn't say anything either way in his ruling about the effect of the first is it your position that if we thought he was contributions and it refers to a running us contributions as well as delinquent contributions i'd like to correct the record with respect to the ruling below by judge leg that involved in full engineering and our contention is that he probably did that because there was no underlying obligation because there was no collective bargaining agreement no binding trust agreement and therefore they had no obligation but i think what i'm here i'm here both of you saying is that it's an open issue if we were to remain on this matter just prior unless we direct you to decide the case a certain way it seems to me that each side has arguments as to whether it is or it is not i think that it would be a very difficult issue to decide but long since there's no written decision in the able engineering case and i don't you know how how sharks prior or anyone else could case there is there is no record of what was intended by the denial of summary judgment or yes yes i wanted to say that there was an issue about what the what could be done in the case that there is no why to arbitration and the issue of the employer filing a lawsuit against the employer and that's not an option here it's not available under the term your position would be very clear that's not for this particular type of action they can initiate litigation for certain types of things but to cover these contributions for  and i think that's significant that we're not just looking at sufficient think as to whether all the monies have been paid but also the accuracy and also that section seven point seven allows for audits to discover any