and we will hear first from there are two issues that we've defined in this case number one is kind of an important constitutional issue article three jurisdiction the other being i can understand your argument on that because boiled down to its essence it seems to me that your argument is because we say we're complying with the arbitral of ward there's no controversy between us and our opponents and usually one side's position doesn't determine whether there is a case or controversy this case looked to me like an entirely ordinary situation in which somebody gets an arbitrary award or two as happens here and they move ahead and go to court as both rio won in the federal arbitration act permit to get that award confirmed very routine except for the process in which it was granted in this case you know i don't think so i mean there's they show that that there's a problem now how that problem gets solved is different obviously that the forty one or whatever the number's up to sub arbitrations going on right now but they show that there's the that they have a reason for thinking that the arbitration awards are not being complied with and so they would like those awards confirmed which is a step in the process for arbitration you must know that certain and it is a step in the process as long as they can show that there is a controversy right and they've shown a youth you say there isn't they say there is that's already a controversy actually and they point to the forty one grievances to show they're actually concrete examples where we don't think this is being complied with and those will then themselves go to arbitration that's clear i gather that's already happening that is seems all easy to me it is happening but in this particular context we have  hear please repeat what you just said driver because it got a little choppy oh gosh i'm in no loss to understand why you do not think there's a real question that you and the union have been on coing to spew about the parameters of section fifty six and the use of managers to perform confirmed is a very normal step if the if there is still a dispute between the parties as there clearly is if those decisions had been polluted leigh clear then  presumably we wouldn't have these other forty one cases but in terms of a motion for judgment on a pleadings what we're suggesting is when you're when you're strictly narrowing this down to what the units claimed in their perfect relief all they asked for is for the confirmation of the two were actually because they are respecting the arbitration agreement another thing that slabber guests me about your position is you seem to be saying because this particular collective bargaining agreement preserved the right to strike for the union you would like strikes all the time you don't want people to use the arbitration procedure and you don't want them to use confirmation because hyatt for mysterious reasons thinks that it's better off with strikes and it seems to me that's a very strange position for an employer to take if that's your position and real as i look at this c p a it's just that there are a couple of options for the union  and they have chosen to try to work through the arbitration procedure it's really not our position that we would encourage a strike and we don't mean i don't mean certainly to portray that issue in that light what we're saying in that regard is that there are remedies within the contract t correct that like a strike and you would rather they use that than simply work their way to the end of the line with the arbitration procedure and the end of the line is confirmation of award because we certainly do not encourage it will have a harmonious relationship with our work but in terms of the context of this case we do suggest that if you simply enlighten simply name out forty one other allegations without proving those allegations to support your case  controversy blew john cases we demonstrated with discrete court says you have to prove those allegations no it doesn't there is no case that says you have to prove allegations before you can sustain standing you have to show that you have made good faith allegations and we've been very careful as has the supreme court to draw a distinction between the good faith allegation support standing and the ultimate winner of the case which is the merits we mean otherwise all cases would be up in the air about standing until a jury came back or a court ruled if it was a case for the court and that's simply not the law i think in this particular case from a motion for judgment on a pleadings w what you left with other new family know that you're contesting as judge over said we know the truth you think and you seem to be saying you think they you think they should improperly have asked the court to resolve the forty one cases and you would have come back right away at that point with a motion saying no no no those forty one cases are for the arbitrator which is precisely what the union is doing they're doing what you would have urged them to do but i don't think i  don't suggest that to the court that there should be simply or summarily granted motion when you don't have a violation of these two particular orders that's contested  violating them that is true and our position with regard to that is the impact that it hairs on the future of the traditions not just simply the judgment on the pleadings or should we have but what kind of impact does it have that's for the arbitrators in the later proceedings and what you can get from confirmation is a final resolution of the disputes that were submitted to the arbitrators the ones that they decided the bellman dispute and the dispute about the convention services department that went before the two arbitrators and as you yourself pointed out if it's confirmed judicial contempt proceedings are also possible which puts a little more muscle behind it but the lighter arbitrators will to will decide essentially the collateral stoppel or claim precludes effect of the earlier wards certainly that there is the steps of the kitchen in there but i'm sure it's a german court pointed out you like heavily on that case sometimes when the court put its stamp of approval on a case like this it's hasn't has a tremendous influence known world with regard to the arbitrator that the employers is in fact violating don't you think that actually also underscores the fact that this is a real dispute you don't want the arbitrators award to be confirmed they do want the arbitrators award to be confirmed that looks to me like a dispute a real concrete dispute between you the court is empowered to do something about it  the court's reluctance in the first circuit at least in some of the underlying cases that we cited to in the district court level has shown a propensity to follow that approach to if the court is not inclined to grant the reversal in the managers are going to have to comply with this type of federal court and effectively a federal court judgment then we have some real issues with regard to the practical side of actually deciding that  being submitted to arbitrators yes your honor ok and at some point they will be resolved and the other point i would like you to talk about is the last point that mr warman made which is this cease and desist order who had back pay as well asked a cease and desist order all right so is there any vagueness issue with respect to that we believe there is not your honor and if i could actually go back to your first point there is actually in the record  separate appendix particularly the affidavit of zachary king that the hotel filed we see that the parties are arbitrating these forty one specific allegations there's also i believe page one twenty eight of the separate and they go through really careful sifting the allegations that were made the evidence before the arbitrators as well as the contract language and the contract language is fairly brief it says  that managers shouldn't perform work that's normally performed by members of the bargaining unit except when there's an emergency and so one of the difficulties was what does an emergency mean and both arbitrators agreed on that they came up with that they she says yes i think and there was a little bit of definition of what normal means to wasn't there i think so yes your honor so i don't believe that every any possible alleged violation that may occur that the union alleges violates section fifty six of the c p a is also going to be a violation of these arbitration awards because i don't believe that the arbitration awards cover every contingency that may arise in the running of this hotel but the arbitration awards certainly by adjudicating numerous examples of typical violations that occur  really clarify the boundaries of quite a bit of what is what the arbitrators intended and so i do think that the awards are clear enough that hiatt can comply with them first before seeking contempt sanctions your honor i don't believe that that is a really an issue that's before the court i don't i don't think there's if you you know that that issue is not right the union hasn't sought to bypass the arbitration process in any way so i don't think that's an appropriate order for this court  in these two our virtual boards some discussion an elaboration of what the term emergency mean is and you know one level every arbitration award i suppose adds to kind the industrial workplace you know the understanding in the workplace of of what the deal is between the parties on the other hand of course the the true race judicata effect of the earlier arbitration awards is going to be now for these later arbitrators to determine so i'm interested in in your position on what if these words are confirmed what these definitions of the emergency and quite clear from the law section three zero one that an order of confirmation doesn't really increase the persuasive effect of an arbitration awarded it's not saying that we the court would have found exactly the same way if we had faced the merits of decision no actually quite to the contrary that would be against all sorts of arbitration law right right we're saying you're somehow in the zone you interpreted the contract that's right to drive your arbitral word from the essence of the contract whatever the phrase is that's right and so the race judicata effect of these two awards in future arbitrations is up to those arbitrators to decide and that's simply the law  ee where it where this may become a question and this is just purely speculative not on it not on any facts that are before us and i don't believe that has happened yet but if the union had to seek contempt in court it would have to make i believe quite a high showing that the subsequent violations were really substantially similar to the violations that are found the two awards that were confirmed here and so it is again not every future violation is going to be a violation that could that could go to court or that would violate this order of confirmation although it may violate the contract depending on what the arbitrators one section fifty six is pretty broad it is ironic yeah so i can certainly imagine that although it may have been violated here there are all sorts of applications that you wouldn't really think quite well what they cover what those arbitrators considered and how they interpreted the contract and and those are words that they don't go beyond what's written there so cease and desist is not an uncommon part of an arbitration award in this field is it your honor it's it's not uncommon it's more often i when i've seen requests to confirm awards it's because there's a monetary judgment and the winning party wants to reduce that to an enforceable judgement to collect the money but cease and desist awards are certainly appropriate this court in honeywell actually specifically approved of them and it cited quite a few authorities including i think that case was in one nine hundred seventy five but there was even then this text of korea a korean arbitration which is a standard reference in the field and that texas approves quite a hiatt units answer actually although they denied those forty one specific allegations in the denial section of its answer on the basis that it hadn't yet investigated them it also said in its answer the second affirmative defense in the answer was the dispute described in this lawsuit should be arbitrated and so i don't think and then further move to that court move the district court for to compel arbitration of those forty one specific allegations they were already in arbitration but there is not a real dispute even in hiatt's filings with the court issues still pending and it's before us now those forty one allegations have never been before the court for resolution on the merits because they must be arbitrated under the collective bargaining agreement so weren't you trying to floor i mean you know there are some cases that say if there's no reason to think there's a problem then there's no controversy that counts for article three purposes so it was my understanding you mentioned these forty one additional instances just show  in that class of cases that in deed it has not all been resolved between you and that there is still live disputes yes your honor the the derwin case in the first circuit and then there are a couple of district court cases here that say if the union doesn't even plead that there are violations of the court's not going to waste its time confirming these awards and so we have been up front from the beginning that we are pleading those violations to show that there is an ongoing dispute about the validity of the wards the the awards also the higher you turn one of the awards worthless the the union has reason to believe good faith reason to believe that it is not complying with these awards and the awards themselves show that this was an ongoing problem of contract compliance and so with all of that that's why those specific allegations are in the complaint not for resolution by i think it's important to actually understand what do you want actually says the fleshly award awards no monetary amount but it states the hotel was here by directed to cease and desist from violating section fifty six and take all reasonable violating section fifty six of the two thousand and thirteen two thousand eight hundred c b a there are some real issues with regard to that order and how we implemented in a way that it's not going to be a what the word says the award is that brought it says follow the contract which really puts us in a situation of how does a manager when you've got i think we have to fight a hundred some managers that are at the hotel eight hundred employees there's going to be issues with federal court order now you have a situation where could it be it will sixty five injunctions for that matter are we going to have managers are going to be called before the trial court who are facing contempt of court proceedings as a result of this so there are some legitimate concerns pointed out and brief and we think should be addressed with at least some clarification and just what is meant so i've never seen though an arbitrator's that already quoted to a rule sixty five injunction if it's a rule sixty five injunction there are arbitrary or every grievance that would be filed now or in the future they would not go to the court for contempt of court they would go to arbitration but as well you mean you make a lot of that language mean i think they were saying of course if there's a particular just you arbitration is the way to go and you're trying to manufacture a dispute where you are apparently in complete agreement that these forty one disputes are proper for arbitration they're being arbitrat