accord my name is eden brown gaines and i am arguing on behalf of the independent uganda action employees for democracy and justice so the union was elected in may of two thousand and eleven at the same time a predecessor union and the employer the pension benefit guaranty corporation were negotiating a collective bargaining agreement obviously the predecessor union and the employer were pleased with the result of the election and the election a challenge when it became clear that the union would be certified the predecessor union and the employer got together and pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement that they had negotiated a point at a panel of arbitrators to adjust and here grievances the panel that the predecessor union and the employer put together was not a panel that obviously they wanted to utilize because when a grievance came up after they'd appointed a panel fact that there would be grievances and that there would be a panel the union's issue was with the language of the c b a which said that the parties were to select and usually a panel of arbitrators and their cuomo says that now that they are the union and the party that they have not had the opportunity to select the panel of arbitrators they got nowhere with the employer with respect to wanting to participate in this process and said they went to their panel of arbitrators and those arbitrator's that they have not been usually selected and this case pertains to two of the arbitrators on the panel and not all of the arbitrator that will ultimately select it but when going to one of the resign and in fact cast the union's request that he voluntarily step down as a motion for recusal and an arbitration that wasn't quite pending at the time so there was back and forth between the union and the arbitrator and the union expressed its opinion both that he should resign because he had not been mutually selected but also that he had an ethical obligation to consider the fact that he had not been mutually selected and consider his resignation ultimately the arbitrator did not resign there was an arbitration that arbitration hearing that went before mr conway the union participated in that arbitration hearing under protest believing that he did not have to as the action because during the pendency of the back and forth way wasn't validated because the union actually went forward with the one arbitration that was before the parties with the with that panel they protested it but they ultimately went forward with it they simply believe that the arbitrator should know that they hadn't been initially selected and have the opportunity to step down so that they could negotiate a new process with the employer in order to place to replace those arbitrators a violation of the that's right but the union says this is a little different than the ad who serves on the arbitration panel is not the same issue as access to the grievance machinery the union was not caught contesting the fact that there should be agreements process and that there should be a panel of arbitrators that the matter of contest for the union is who serves on the panel of arbitrators and the union believe the very language of the c b a itself makes clear that the parties to that agreement should be able to select arbitrators so the union simply believe that now  confusing to the union and quite frankly to myself the five is refusing to negotiate in good faith or refusing to to work with the employer and there's just no evidence and the record whatsoever that the union has failed to do that in public i think that you you can simply let arbitrators know that they didn't feel that their service with mutual i think it was an expression of opinion i think it was an argument that the you had the right to make under the statute itself under seven  individual person expressing their own personal opinions this in this case with the opinion of the union so i would say that this falls more under the argument or opinion part of the union the union was simply expressing their opinion that a panel of arbitrators and making this argument and its colloquy back and forth with the arbitrator's and yes i think the union has to show that the speech was not threatening our course of i think that there isn't anything about the colored people to be the arbitrator's that even could reasonably be viewed as threatening he did i think there's case law that even says that an implicit threat to sue or a statement that assumed could go forward is not necessarily going to be your it's an actual words were coercive of code of ethics that is used by the f m c as what would have been the result simply removal from the left and that list wasn't even at issue in this case i mean it's hard to see pointing out that here is the guidelines by which we must all operate and here is how you're no then they went to the arbitrators and by the arbitrators that they had not been voluntarily selected that where the new union on board that we'd like to have the opportunity to meet with you because we think that we should be a part of the process of the arbitration honor my name is rebecca hall born in together with you know peter's i represent the federal labor relations authority in this matter this case is a simple one we would do states bargaining agreement and that would include the memorandum of agreement that the predecessor union entered into with the agency that is all part of the mandatory portion of the collect means that there have to be carrion set for use when a collective bargaining agreement is entered into by two parties and the successors to that agreement are bound to the three men to the same extent as the predecessor was no procedures negotiated under right yes they're for why isn't these going to be years before he came to the same conclusion in this case yeah that's my point w decided that was common right yes the same guy yes but it doesn't answer the question of when an arbitrator resigns or steps down what happens and that's and that's the issue the union simply went to the arbitrators and said hey we didn't usually select  an issue that wasn't really in dispute that they had to follow the grievance process and that they had to work with arbitrators that had been selected the question presented here today was was the union's conduct in asking arbitrators to roll entirely resign because of their arbitrator conway happened after the charge period or outside of the charge period so it was inappropriate of the f r a to order that conduct that is outside of the charge period be remedied based on this charge but also because there was this contractual agreement that arbitrator probably step down and then i also wanted to add the nd issue which is about having to f l or i consider the fact that arbitrator conway has moved out of the area and is charging both parties the government agree it wasn't known at the time so it looks like the union raising the issue finding out the information and raising the issue to cross the mail with the f l r a's decision that they don't communicate electronically they send their decisions by mail so when the union realized and obtained a proof which was a bill from another case that arbitrator conway was actually paying people i mean charging people for his transportation costs the union then prepared to go to th raise with that agency oh it's not it's not in the record and this is now it's not before well under the statute the court has the authority to hear new evidence that's not in the record that's not a part of the record that wasn't before the court he didn't really want t and i think it's an important consideration because arbitrator calmly has created facts that mean that none of the parties that anticipate it i mean i think whether the government itself is going to use taxpayers dollars to pay for an arbitrator be bragging rights argument the