because we are defending the sanctity of the arbitrator june th the merits award against his apparently inconsistent remedy determination which was made in the september th e mail and because the union filed it to vacate within ninety days of the september th email the soup was tightly and that is the only issue before the court today we recognize that on the merits the standard of review is properly of the june award in august i mean didn't if you're in other words if if if there was a later award wasn't it the august award or the arbitrator said no the company did exactly what i told them to do and at that point shouldn't aug th e mail the union had not yet had an opportunity to give him a brief and the union asking hold off on making this judgement until we give you the brief so this temper thirteen email is the final award that true but if parties are required to hedge against the risk that an arbitrator's going to deny their position on the remedy then what's going to have to happen in both labor and understanding before the arbitrator even rules on the remedial english for instance if the union had filed a lawsuit in this case on july st right after the june th the ward it wouldn't have been an act it would have been an action to confer because the union thought we did while and that action would have been asking the district court to do with june th the ward apparently set which was to make all opioids hold for the full well it's a vacation  kim can we talk a little bit about the merits i just want make sure i am sure so this was two thousand and seventeen right so anybody who had been working through calendar year two thousand and sixteen yes but there's another issue about whether they are entitled to a payout of the vacation pay that they earned in twenty seven c can i understand that so i but saw it so two thousand and sixteen in there in two thousand and six seems not a plant closing would go all the way through the end of the year i can understand that argument but why would they get also get the program in addition to that although i'm not talking about two different segments they would we wouldn't get duplicated payment but it would certainly be entitled to the amount of cover and the time work through january through the plant closing but the union also has the claim or the video should be run through the end of the year ok and so it was your view that the arbiter suggest you're right you get paid through the end of the which it can be said that the arbitrator declared this is my final war because he said i have and no longer have jurisdiction is are you hanging your hat on that phrase yes yes not enough it made a later i would argue that the arbitrator would have the authority to pick question you should take your claim to the arbitrator and not to the district court that would have been a correct order and that's exactly what the union did the union should not have been punished for it by a rule that suddenly backed a cruel cause of action and you hadn't used a day of it when the plant closed and you were laid off in april or if you were laid off in july you would have been paid out in all those weeks of vacation so from the company's perspective is the union actually six and two thousand and eighteen and they are they're seeking they are seeking vacation pay that would have been earned throughout two thousand and seventeen that would have been issued to those members in general want to and again i think you cleared up my confusion so thank you yet and it's trains physicians they were entitled to any trick ation pay that if for example you had a milestone anniversary date that occurred after the plant closing in two thousand and seventeen so if for example you had worked for the company for twenty nine years but if you worked there thirty years you would get four weeks instead of three weeks vacation if your th year anniversary date after the plant closure the arbitrator said you've got to give that person additional week of pay so that's what train did train went back looked at its records found out which employees would have had a milestone in a virtual dates after the plant closure date there were three such employees and it pa vision but i think what i hear the unit have attained for is they should be paid out in full the vacation it was granted to them at the beginning which one is seventeen and then they should be paid out in all the vacation that had the plant not closed and they worked throughout the individually seventeen that they would have got at decision where he addresses that issue well the arbitrators is a new you're under your interpretation the arbitration of what he did he just ignored that issue that well we would say he didn't john we would say if you actually look at his or if you look at his award the actual was granted him at the beginning of the year according to the amount of their seniority and we read that to mean that if they would have gotten additional pay that year due to their seniority then that's got to be paid to them and it seemed to me that's a circular argument because all he's saying is if you get paid what you're entitled  seventeen and you say they're not entitled to anything unions are entitled to either a four year or at least pro rata and so how do we know what they're entitled to in two thousand and seventeen what was your right as our position they were get an additional week of paid well then if he had to clarify the award doesn't that undercut your argument that the statue imitations ran from june th should not run from the date of quarter for cation i don't think that there's any ambiguity i don't was was brought to the union's attention what about the offer then dismissed recently doesn't that at least arguably reopen in other words he clarified the award or confirm the word in then and then said look i'll take additional argument that we did that doesn't that  disagreement and why train thought that it had complied with the award of the arbitrator upon reading our briefing the unit had not seen anything but upon reading our briefing said no need to have a conference call i've read your respective positions trained you complied with the award and he actually in his e mail that day he concluded by saying that best wishes to both you and your colleagues so at that point it looks like the matter is over but then they do say we want to submit additional briefing and that does i agree complicate the issue somewhat so would you agree that the june order was ambiguous now we do not know i mean we take the position that ours is the only rightful interpretation the arbitrator has of course agreed with that they're the only ones advocating the the position that they are in this matter so we say no that's why we advocate that the june th two thousand and eighteen award issuance date is the date that the award is the date that ninety day limitations period should ran but if you were to find that that is not the date there really are only three other options two of them would still be outside limitations one would not the nd potential option would be when training paid these employees the additional weeks and the reason i make that point your honor says because the arbitrator here when he retain jurisdiction the award he says i'm retaining jurisdiction until the terms of the award are met a nd possible option for the limitations period run is the day train paid those individuals the additional we could vacation pay which the arbitrator later said was all you had to do if you used that date then this lawsuit d was filed one hundred and forty days from that date and still be untimely well i'm a little confused how you could have an act of of the companies being the point at which statute would run at the time frame would run seems like it would have to be that sort of adding one step you've got the initial award and then the two memos all coming from the arbitrator but i'm not can i don't know how you can i don't know how find that the district court erred in this missing the lawsuit on limitations ground then the lawsuit would be remanded to the district court at which point i guess depending on how you advocating on whether or not the award is ambiguous and we would say it's not because the arbitrator is applying two times if they convinced the court that the word was ambiguous then i think it would be remanded to the arbitrator to yet again weigh in on what it was he was sides think they won and union and you say we owe you x number of hours you paid it the union says no your multiples of x number of dollars let's go back to the arbitrator and have up him clarify and he says has to pick he said well what i really meant was that the company's position which is what happened in this case you're saying they can't they can't litigator that at that point they had to know at the very beginning that that could be that they could file a motion maybe perhaps to confirm the award because that that lawsuit wouldn't be untimely as the union is noted what the sexual tension there is ten years and perhaps somehow get in front of the court that way i don't know i don't think the where the arbitrator says to the parties i just received a call from mike who is the union representative who is on the road he requested time to prepare a grief in response to chris's the company's brief i granted his request and gave them until next thursday august  th so are telephonic conversation for this afternoon is cancelled and i will read what mike the union representatives submit i will consider both sets of briefs and make a final determination soon after that time and the next email after that i th and that's why we are within ninety days of the oral traders final act and simply to point out if your retreat or head rule the for the union as we think he should have nobody disputes that the company would have ninety which party the arbitrator rules or if the arbitrator rules for the company the that ruling be get even the moment of the arbitrators final act remedial jurisdiction even though he's saying no for the remedy is necessary otherwise you have a situation where parties find that the ninety days is already run because there's no wall d that requires arbitrator's to make those remedial determinations within ninety days of the merits of ward so for all the reasons given in this court's decisions