all right we're here council in new york city district council of carpenters against trustees of the new york district council of the carpenters mill for front boards and versus best made floors may please the court my name is jay period michael goddess member i represent best made floors in this auction best made floors was a small business run from  hours that its workers worked and they did not pay for an eighth hour that the worker was entitled to work but elected not to work my client was ordered as part of the audit it gave the benefits was that the its workers worked but it didn't pay for the a salary the workers didn't work an extensive email communication with the union benefit fund my client was it's just was instructed how to proceed to make a long story short it secured affidavits for its employees that the union audit ordered the vision said should be said should be provided without going into details the district court found that these affidavits had been accepted by the benefits division the order to vision my client reason reasonably thought that that  nt of it was resolved for some reason not disclosed in any deck declaration by any union person these affidavits were rejected it's not in the memorandum suggests questions of credibility but if you're going to reject them based on credibility why i asked for them in the first place you know if it didn't make sense opposition is that at minimum my client was entitled to and that there would be an arbitration if the amount was not was not passed ask a question about the address so i gather that the secretary of state in the c v a the one seventy two division street address or division avenue is stated as the place for formal notice but you said that your client designated other addresses and i wasn't quite sure what that designation was was that was your formal notice given or was it just that you used certain email addresses no no no in a if you give me a minute in the report of the account use it lists the address from for mail service for service would establish notice without question and if a certified mail was not reject was not refused or not picked up that ordinary mail to t address would be sufficient but that didn't happen in this case there is no way that you can say that the mail that was on the live rabbo was not picked up you can say that it was refused the supreme court a requires another effort acquires more than just a certified mail in ordinary mail that's sufficient if it was rejected or not picked up that was not the case here so it's not just due process or procedure will do process but the c b i itself recognized that the union had that the union had to do something else and it's it's i mean it's common sense of a person gives you an address and you use that address you use the e mail address to get in touch with the person it's only common sense that if you really want to if you want to act i mean the there's an allegation that voicemail was left as well several that was used for years previously in other words instead of instead of looking at the mo at the information that they had right in front of them they just went on the internet they didn't even think that they were same way and the secretary of state and what's more is if if someone tells and tells a union listen we we want to be notified in this this in this way ok even if they didn't change the the collective bargaining agreement they were having a problem receiving mail and they have volumes the union notify us at this address notify us at this e mail address the union goes through the process uses the e mail address and approved by the union and the union says one thing about why a about the designated means with russ they said that was perfect service well that's like saying you know i have a perfect wife serving you but i don't but i can use in fear you ways because the law doesn't require me to use a perfect way if a person knows the exact way to serve someone he he has to use when he can't say well i'm going to the about one and use and use a less and less of affective way i just want to say one other thing on the second point this is a case where the union misled and presented f information i have to say that they stated that my client got notice of the of the year war of the claim and didn't pay it now that contains a clear implication that my client didn't respond to it and that was false ok my client respond to it my client worked it out and i submit that was that was part of the union's case and you know as part of any good face process you know that was there affirmative case to present the whole truth to the arbitrator so i just want to say i see my time is running out so i just want to say on the on on the other award on the first award i know that this you know that the court ha questions about fundamental fairness applying to the arbitration awards not become familiar with that but we're not talking just about all of the traitor misconduct here we're talking about without admitting without admitting violations so the unions didn't explain why they made that why they made that statement why would they try to put why were they trying to suppress this testimony there's no question that that's what they were trying to do and without regard to anything else arbitration the sooner the people are going to use their i'm not going to misuse their power this was a case where the union misused its power to sanction  hartly act jointly trustee by employer and management so it is a mischaracterization relation to refer to the funds as the division benefit funds to vision of the union the separate legal entities they have separate counsel so on behalf of the union we are here the only there's only one arbitration award before your honor's and that is the november third two thousand and fifteen award for approximately six thousand dollars in wages and benefits on behalf of has nothing to do with you and that's the award that that's before the court that's before the court correctly it's not your problem right i'm just saying on behalf of the union there's only one award for you you would agree that as far as we're union respectfully asks this court to affirm judge ross's ruling which confirmed the november third two thousand and fifteen award  failed to meet the extremely high burden that's required to defeat confirmation of an arbitration award as your honors know for over fifty years it's been well established by the supreme court and this circuit that labor awards are a arbitration award is among the most deferential in the law what appellant is asking your honest to do is basically overturned over five decades of well established  law but collective bargaining agreement says in black and white the arbitrary decision is final and binding this is i submit a garden variety petition to confirm an arbitration award the appellant attempts to change it into something other than that by mudslinging attacking accusing the arbitrator of being corrupt and extortion alleging extortion that as you are said was not  his point that he made just this morning alleging a threat of witness intimidation when indeed there was no such threat also he also points to the a word that since been corrected that or a total of ten as opposed to a total of fifty that's that is no longer before us and i gather that doesn't prevent us from exercising jurisdiction here but just as an evidentiary matter it was a surprisingly high number could you explain why that doesn't help validate his claim of bias on behalf of the arbitrator certainly your honor they're the two thousand one to two thousand six collective bargaining agreement has a contractual penalty for cash payments without the proper documentation of five thousand dollars the subsequent collective bargaining agreement two thousand and eleven to two thousand and fifteen the penalty to twenty five thousand dollars so regardless of what collective bargaining agreement the arbitrator was applying applying the five thousand dollars penalty could be per instance we're talking multiple days of cash payments so whether the arbitrator applied five thousand dollars per instance under the truth as an thousand and six collective bargaining agreement or the twenty five thousand dollars per individual twenty five for all of the cash payment violations to want to play twenty five thousand to explain what he was doing though really he just said i have great confidence and here's the fifty thousand dollars tab correct he had confidence that the violation occurred he did not explain the the remedy whether he case that the lower amount could fly with the union is not in the business of of trying to bring as much money out of employees as possible they are in the business of getting wages and benefits for work performed which is e and the union hundred percent agrees that the fifty thousand dollars penalty is fully supported by the contracts but again to its detriment but in the interest of accommodation we agreed to modify the award downward because as mr guy's been pointed out arguably the one so that's why i say that what is not before your honor's but certainly we could not be flexible downward when it comes to wages and benefits to an employee  i just want to point out that the first this sort of goes to the credibility of the whole claim of after the fact extortion and after the fact witness intimidation the first anyone ever heard of such allegations is not after the award was issued not even ninety days after the award was issued which is the statutory period in which a person has the time to move to vacate a ward the first time we ever heard these claims were as these and i would say and how many attacks was when the union moved to enforce the awards and i think this really shows that in the absence of any  case that best made florence had they decided to have mudslinging in the direction of the arbitrator and the union i just want to quickly get to the point about the threats to to sanction and best ma hearing she correctly applied the highly deferential standard of review she found that with years go to witness threats she found that there was no evidence that there was any threat made to sa your point but with respect to anything that mr goddess and might have argued before earlier today that has anything to do with the new york city district council of carpenters all of those issues before a judge was yes they were your honor and decisions were well thought out and rightly decided she considered all of the allegations and dismiss there was nothing bold speculative about the union's admission that after mr stryker said he wanted a herd to testify the union stepped out and said and came back mr a turn might not want to testify if he's going if he's going to be at risk of sanctions if you admitted technical violations they would technical during his testimony and judge royce found that he could not have testified without admitting those violations so that's a very that's just a very genteel way of saying that mr that mr a hern is not going to want to testify because because he would be at risk of sanctions and contrary to what mr siegel aka says said i have the greatest regard for her and i just feel i have to say that caught  contrary to what she said the union had power over a her and they summoned him to what they summoned him two to one hearing with a wanted to find out about a strike or they had power to produce a case laid down the goal of the gauntlet if affectively make it impossible for her to testify without fear of retribution and arbitrators do have the power under the federal arbitration act and under the c p l are to subpoena and compel witnesses to testify and the union did not dispute until the of until the very last briefing that a sure applied brief that we asked the arbitrator to compel the union to produce mr and her in without fear of retribution if the union can conduct an arbitration in that manner what's the sensabaugh be trading if