yes number fifteen three five four two jason bellini's del verses talk on the telephone company at all argument not to exceed fifteen minutes per side with fifteen minutes to be shared by the defendant mr coco can proceed for union employee of the chillicothe the telephone company was terminated for a reason for reasons for things that he did not do and the union and his union failed to fulfill its obligations to him and every way he basically conceivable the district court improperly applied the summary judgment standard in it in that it failed to construe the evidence in favor of mr bleasdale and to recognize material factual disputes in the record you want to read i'm sorry yes i did three minutes i should have done that and i forgot the material factual disputes include the reasons for mr bush still firing the failure of of  own to investigate the matter part of firing mr billy's data the unit's utter failure to gather evidence or even attempt to advocate on behalf of mr billy's dale and also the basic facts underlying the defamation claim i'd like to turn first to the hybrid three zero one klein against the union and the company there's two elements to that claim and the first element deals with the idea of whether there was a breach of the contract with the company the contract has a just cause provision for terminations in it and a very short provision just says just cause and there were two reasons advanced by the company as to why they terminated m the first dealt with the idea that in essence he did no work on the afternoon of december fourth and the other deals with the idea that he supposedly made some calls that a customer brad carroll made concerning  honor but again factual disputes relating to that and if i could just highlight how big the evidence that is in iraq or relating to mr bleasdale on those on those issues first on the afternoon of the of the of the summer fourth there is extensive testimony deposition testimony for people who actually did work for not just from mr billings to about what he did and when he did it and why he did it including other employees of the company relating to it with regard to these calls by brad carroll there excuse me not the union the company the idea is whether there was a just cause on the on the contract to terminate that is a pure factual issue now the other of the union the company has tried to make the issue that in breached the contract whether the contract was breached the standard is was the contract bleached that's basically the standard we're dealing with on that situation and is there evidence of our breach or not evidence of the br they are trying to inject the honest belief concept them which i do not believe has any applicability i said john and i agree with you on the second aspect of it when you're focusing on the unions with the union did or didn't do or should have done there is more of what i would call also i guess sort of an intent element of it because when you look at the standards in the three different ways that we can meet the standard for the union not properly representing  us they are they do focus a little bit more on on the conduct overall conduct and i guess you can get into more into an in an issue but there's evidence of all three situations that we need all three tasks and we only have to be in one of the three tasks for the union to satisfy the union aspect of this and the first task really says the arbitrary nation or nature of their conduct and that goes to in essence some of the case law the for instance the black case on the show shown of her case which are factual situations that are actually less egregious in this situation it goes than essence perfunctory handling of the matter by the union which set out in our brief very extensively the idea of what was done and what wasn't done in this case the union representative what two stages of the grievance procedure and yes and yes your honor they held out that there wasn't any grounds for it so they refused to go along it was not taken arbitration there were some initial grievance meetings and yes i think it went through two stages under the grievance process basically when you go through the facts as we set out in the there was no investigation done in the situation there was no conversations with mr bleasdale trying to address issues there were no documents provided by the union to the company there was no attempt by the union to to argue with any of the facts that the union put forth the testimony is really pretty stark on that issue and i can direct you or your attention on that to a section in my brief really on page forty six of the brief there are some striking quotes from the company and from the union representatives about what was done and what wasn't done as far as trying to contest the can't with the claim in this case were an  arbitrary nature of the breach and the perfunctory handling of the breach obviously that there is deference to the union and then in this area in the standard we realize that you have to look at the facts of this case as we set out in the breeze it's very important to do that the other at the other standard there's another there's a three part test if we meet any of the test it satisfies the overall standard goes to the idea of discrimination in this case and it's not the idea of in a class of discrimination law that we're talking about it's the idea that he was treated differently from other union members here the testimony's undisputed that mr bleasdale is the only union member that was the in the deposition testimony i forget how many august there war but there were three or four that the union president mr morgan could imagine mentioned in the deposition that were taken reply at the request don't bend over years or ten years or i really don't do not know exactly what time period we're talking about but he is mr morgan again the union present agree he is the only one that has his grievance would not take an arbitration and a firing turned into a now will provision well there is there is no i'm sorry go ahead there is a house supreme court authority in the in the actual sit in the same type of situation we're talking about which was cited in the reply brief where there was an undefined there was a just cause provision undefined in the contract it's just says just cause and the court said ok an arbitrator can use the well recognized already standard in labor arbitration cases for just cause which becomes a heavily factual analysis and that's the hot supreme court interpret ing the words just cause in a contract and another contract entered into an a ha so if we're talking about interpret if you want to add a legal overlay to contract words which are just the words just cause you should be looking to the house from court's legal overlay that there are edging on it i recognize the cases that you're talking about factual issue what is reasonable what is unreasonable what did they do in the investigation etc etc etc as was said on in our brief they basically did nothing in the investigation in essence they're saying they can do nothing  investigating the case not even talk to the person that they're saying all that's not you that's you making the call that's not that person and yet and they are somehow insulated that there is no not even a factual issue three days and basically over a weekend he was brought in on a friday issues were brought up with him he was asked to remember things that occurred at least ten days before that and he had a brief conversation with them and then he was fired on monday after the election calls by brad carroll in this in this case by the calls by brad carroll they didn't bother to talk to brad carroll they didn't even talk to mr blue steel about the calls before he was fired in this situation there was no investigation in essence relating to the situation relating to the two reasons why he was supposedly fired your honor i see it my time is as is winding up at this point i'll just come back on rebuttal and try to address any other issues that you might have thank court properly applied the summary judgment standard when it granted the motion for summary judgment for the chillicothe the telephone company and eric stevens and also on behalf of the the union local five seventy eight the court properly determined that the undisputed facts demonstrated that there was no genuine issue of material fact that the chill of the telephone company complied with the collective bargaining agreement when it terminated mr bleasdale employment and that the union met its obligation of fairly represent him notably all the facts despite what opponents counsel would suggest that the court consider all undisputed facts contrary to his contention the district court did not disregard mr bliss tells evidence or his contentions did misapply the summary judgment standard and just because mr believes still takes issue with the facts that the company relied on to base the decision to terminate his employment does not equate to or create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether or not the company had just cause and whether the company reasonably relied on those facts it's clear as mr coco has suggested that to prevail on a section three a one claim mr believes still has to demonstrate both that the company breached the collective bargaining agreement and that the union failed to adequately represent him but they did do develop a just cause did you have to ask they go away whether he did or not that his counsel claimed you didn't even talk to him and you arbitrary battery that was there while your honor certainly one of the things that's important to keep in mind is that the district court properly referenced the fact that this court in the district court are not to have just cause and order terminate his employment whether those facts come by way of in interviewing the strip bleasdale or otherwise is irrelevant in this case your honor we have a series of facts that are recited in both the company's brief and and in the union's proof that demonstrate that the company had a reasonable basis to conclude that mr did impersonate a customer when those phone calls were made those phone calls were made only two days after mr pleased was confronted about what he did on december the fourth mr billy's still had work from the for the company from one nine hundred ninety six until two thousand and twelve you know at least five people from the company recognized his voice and also some recognize that mr carroll's force in new from listening to the phone calls but that was not mr billy's and what's also important to keep in mind the record is clear it is undisputed that not only mr morgan but every member of the grievance committee listened to the recordings of those telephone calls and everyone concluded that that was jason pleased on those calls where the union people that you don't have both a grievance committee members mr morgan and five you on these calls and he would not answer that question he said that's brad carroll and in fact in the deposition testimony that mr coco referenced there were there was more than one call and mr carroll himself said i don't know if that's defined just cause i think that is the proper standard for this court to determine but i think what's also important to bear in mind is that this court is not to relate a gate just cause it's not to relate a gate mr believe grievance in the context of a district court decision the question is whether or not the company had a just cause and frankly whatever standard that's applied whatever just cause it is the company had it here well that  employer reasonably believe radically but you could use the words did they have cause in an objective sense that didn't look at what the company believe i mean the words don't tell you that that is just got to be your analysis right i  understand that they're ambiguous in that sense you could say i had cause even though i didn't know it those words parse were i understand your honor i believe though that that the district court's obligation is to determine whether or not the company had reasonable grounds in their mind not whether or not whether there were reasonable grounds right whether it had not to read litigate are you getting that from discrimination cases or is that what i do think that that that concept he clearly the rule in discrimination cases because there were trying to govern intent people or what employers are thinking you're really it's we're talking about contractual obligations which might apply even if the employer was misguided exactly but i think th fact that in a three zero one case the district court has to determine whether or not the company breached the contract we have a just cause standard the court has to look at whether or not the company had a fair and honest cause or reason and again isn't to second guess certainly can scrutinize to a certain level but again the question is what was the evidence that the company had before it when it made its determination and that's the same sort of standard that an arbitrator would apply in arbitration and so here mr believe still can't use section a one as a vehicle to again really litigation or take whatever dispute he has whether it's a terminations decision or any other any other dispute relating to collective bargaining before the court and to relay to get that issue that is not the the morning ryan highmore i represent the union in this case just to touch on the just cause provision because i know there's been a lot of talk of that as a labor attorney a union side labor attorney just cause really is what the arbitrator determines just cause to be and you know like it could be you know a different standard from what arbitrator to the next and i think this court when it reviews an arbitrator's determination of just cause always provides almost all to mit deference to the arbitrators determination i don't think an arbitration award has been reversed out of the six circuit in a long long time and in fact when it doesn't that suggest that this case should have been taken arbitration by the union absolutely not because then you have to look at the union's duty of fair representation and what actually it did at the time it was doing it and the summary judgment standards and review that this court is required to consider you've got to look at what the disputed material facts are so in order to determine what material what's material in a certain case you've got to look at the underlying substantive law and the related evidentiary burdens and boundaries that means when evaluating and duty of fair representation in case we can't engage in any after the fact second guessing of opinions and actually judge seiler twelve years ago in garrison vs can cason transport instructed us that we must be ever vigilant to avoid the distorting effects of hindsight when evaluating the union's decision and prosecuting a grievance even where union commits a devastating error is your duty of representation analogous to that of a lawyer no absolutely not it's actually a lot different in as  wanted to get what is there can they just sort of reasonably come to the conclusion that the the the union members his has a weak case and just not take the case and that yeah and that's that's exactly what happened here the in the witness can either be on the facts or it can be due to credibility issues and it can be due to conflicting statements why don't they have a higher burden of sort of being an advocate for their member just being a judge the six circuit is said that it's not a kin to a learned professional relationship it's not akin to a fiduciary relationship to that in turn once they're implying it is not furthering it i mean i labor peace or something like that getting the underlying policy behind me are hoping the employer will be nice to him  some other context or something like that well i'm asking i would be i think anderson are different you're saying i'm wondering why the standards are different what is so underlying that the interest that's underlying it is that the courts don't mend some degree of credibility with the arbiter writers is that wrong well i i don't know that that actually factors into the case but i can see your point because if the union is taking everything to arbitration whether or not there's any merit to it obviously the arbitrators panel they're going to love it because they're getting more and more and more and more cases and they charge by the day but you've got to put that aside you've got to strip that aside we have to think that the union the employer and the arbitrators are all professionals and they don't have any bad motives unless there's something on the face something expressly said and the arbitrators if they keep getting claims that have manager for i believe twelve years he had actually in discovery and it's in the record cited a couple other cases that were taken to arbitration and that were not that were not correct there were a couple that were in the one that's fantastic but not every discharge case it's arbitrated wins and not every discharge case must be arbitrated the supreme court said that versus sites that mr morgan just sort of went and looked around but he did a lot more than that because you have to look at it at the time that mr morgan was involved in this process he went into the disciplinary meeting where bleasdale was fired actually the fourteenth of december before he was fired the friday before he was fired  mr morgan here jason bleasdale side of the story because he's telling the employer that side of the story following monday after the unknown caller calls  again tells a story and it's a little bit different and then mr morgan asks mr bleasdale to write out exactly what happened on december twenty seventh he writes it out and it's december or january but it was all to mutely before the union decided not to proceed with arbitration so it was during this critical time period that we must disassociate with our law degrees and must disassociate with after  evidence we got a look at this time period time period of terminations in the time period the union decides not to take it to arbitration and mr morgan states that he drives around and he looks at the site he does the site visit he's heard three different stories from mr mr bleasdale at this point he's received sworn statements from some of billy's tells witnesses and the stories are not jiving based on mr morgan's experience working with the company and actually doing the same type of work that police tell it done he also reviewed information from the company and it's luminous it's in the record they listen to recordings of the so called customer that called in and mr morgan also did talk to bret carroll well listen to brad carroll let's put it that way it's undisputed that he listened to brad carroll speak in this critical time period and he also heard this unknown caller call in and mr morgan determine that that's the same guy that's brad carroll that i'm sorry that that's jason bleasdale that's not brad carroll he had heard it he's not a voice expert but you don't have to be a voice expert in the context of an arbitration determining whether or not to go to arbitration the union does not have to get a voice expert under these circumstances and he also spoke with a another union member who had stated that brad carroll said that he had gotten a bribe to say it was him on the call now whether or not that's true you know it doesn't matter but this is all in the union business manager it doesn't matter with you i'm sorry might matter with respect to the company but you're saying it doesn't matter with you that's right and the whole grievance committee thought that those recordings the unknown caller on the recordings was mr bleasdale and when you have the conflicting recordings and statements of mr bleasdale when you have that doubt about whether that is mr bleasdale calling in to cover his tracks the union determined after speaking with its international representative who had a lot of experience in dealing with arbitrations and after talking with his committee he determined that it was all conjecture the the business manager admitted he did on the support he did the union business manager did it meant that he applied for a management position but you have to look at that in the context of this company the union representatives are not union reps they actually work out in the field they are paid exorbitant amounts of money to sit in a union hall and you know do whatever they do in the union hall these are gentlemen that are out and women that are out working in trying to suck up to the employer and there is case law that says even if the employer in the union have a sweetheart relationship that those not support bad faith or discriminatory conduct with the tab for that application  i'm sorry tab for i for the application we know i do not know your honor i don't know when it was in the context of mr bleasdale as terminations i think your time is  of every case being taken to arbitration if you look and arbor yourself were citing deposition testimony and the question was mr morgan was the idea of if someone was fired and they asked you to take the case to arbitration was there anyone else other than mr blue stills case that you did not take to arbitration the answer was no mr blue stills was the only one there may have been some others where the people differently than other individuals and every other situation where there was asked to be taken as they relate to something you can say well nobody from nobody who is from this side of town has ever been allowed nobody whose last name started with you has been allowed i mean you could say those are differences that those are not differences of the difference as they relate to something doesn't it relates the idea of whether taking the case to being willing to take the case to arbitration in the lytton case that i'm talking about the difference between whether you're asked or not does is there some sort of extra obligation to take cases when when the when the when the employee asked for it i mean shouldn't they be are you getting from your opponents are you meant that that's not the primary criterion the primary criterion is whether it's a strong case while you're on her you would want to do it if they opposed it i suppose resume a buoy if the employee you want even asked the green union to take it to arbitration it is not a strong case and that's why they wouldn't even ask in this situation that's that's why i think whether they asked her to do with how strong it is you're at least at least in the employee's view of the strength of the case ok thank you this i think it may be that case your honor and judge given your question about the the last elements or the bad faith concept there is much more to that than the idea of simply the job applications there are several other important factors related to that one is the idea that mr morgan took it stopped allowing mr mr blue still to be a union rep because know he was threatening his authority in the union this this also goes to his motives in dealing with this situation also there's evidence in the record that the company viewed mr morgan as someone who would just grievance there's notations in the record again from company letter statements about mr morgan and his view about unions about dealing with grievances with the with the company but it's all relate to that last factor which again is the third independent factor of the three and obviously i haven't had much time to talk about the defamation claim at all and i see my time is up we've said that a lot in our brief but there is also a separate defamation claim in the case thank you we thank you for your argument