for unnecessary at this stage while todd need not be comprehensive about what happened is he details the family emergency prompting leave his upwards to extend the leave and his this is a simple single count there were huge there were no plausible allegations that the grievance was meritorious your honor there's no allegations that he was given reason by the company to believe that his leave request had been granted well your honor those facts frankly were not within the grievance hearing they were they were never here the whole process was compromised and in that regard if if there was a conflict of interest this hearing could have see gone the other way and we would argue that it does not a few have basis for the grievance and i didn't see that here well i would also hope that he was wrongly discharged when he failed to return after a lengthy  well again i would point to the fact that there's there's an allegation that the process was compromised due to the conflict of interest free airline tickets understood but what about the underlying grievance because that's what this is all about certainly there's e mails which were important which which will lead to more important and beneficial to to mr cause cause and these e mails were suppressed deliberately by the union r and those e mails obviously were not part of the complaint but there's there's inferences there that we can take viewing it in and mr titus favor that those e mails would have carried the day was to kill her and i guess i am having some trouble with that you've referred several times to quote strong and important even years but we don't have any idea what those that's true or is why not is from the complaint and i generally agree with that but you didn't i mean well i would also point to the fact that there was no defense presented whatsoever literally mr stripling didn't say a word so i think those two facts and again recognizing that this is an oboe standard and reviewing the allegations and mr thomas favre i think there's there's got to be some some leeway for m consider those inferences in his favor again the complaint does say that the it the e mails are beneficial would have been helpful to say what they were certainly i would acknowledge that but again given the standard and given we're what we're reviewing no question he asked for a for a leaf extended leave it's right is there a good faith allegation as you stand here today that he was given reason to believe that request had been granted i would say granted but but he was i would say he was led to believe that essentially everything would be fine and he would be permitted to come back after this additional time i wouldn't again i would not say i have any any hard evidence i wish there was as we stand here today but again not not to beat a dead horse but viewing the allegations in his favor i think we can we can infer that that there were communications and mr tuck was recently led to believe his leave would be extended by the statue of patients issued the standard is reasonable not actual notice how is he not outside the six that st letter and in the finality of the nd which was absent the st should mean that the nd letter controls again tom had not gone through this process before the union obviously had its time have believe august st that would be that would be where the clock starts the fact that they were not forthcoming with information as to when or what it was going to do next essentially they delay they stalled and they should not  talk was was in the dark it's just what was happening these allegations that mr slow playing told the union members stay quiet suppressing important evidence and presenting good morning may it please the court my name is director hamilton i represent the international brotherhood of teamsters st this case is untimely the contract in effect at the time clearly is said that all decisions of the grievance hearing board were final and binding and arbitration only happened if the board deadlocked and on march st two thousand and seventeen tom was told that the board had denied his grievance at that point in time the union had no discretion to appeal the arbitration there was no decision to be made no decision for mr cotton burton about or to appeal he could have brought his lawsuit on that day und roland christiansen the standard is reasonable no no that's not actual notice and had mr todd been reasonably diligent he would have understood that the process was complete for that reason this claim is untimely and there's no yes march st ok moving on to his allegations about the t f r at this point he's focusing on what happened at the grievance hearing i'd like to start by noticing that that he's now claiming that no defense was offered at all and there was no investigation and mr stripling said nothing at the hearing and that's simply not alleged in this complaint at all there's there's no allegations to that effect  the only allegations about what happened at the hearing are in in one paragraph number twenty seven which simply note that mr todd was told to remain silent and he was prevented from presenting these these documents evidenc communication and i understand some elaboration at this level but it but that the claim that there was no defense offered at all and no investigation that's that's completely new factual allegation that's person who's unprepared might be more likely to leave it to the grieve and to present their own case not less can you direct us to cases affirming  northern district of indiana that cited this circuit's approach to the twelve the six analysis frankly f r claimants when the allegation is that they believe that was a present he knows what he wanted to say at the hearing he knows what information was not chris presented at the hearing and he could easily allege that in his compte it's unclear why he did not so with his allegation that the union conduct was arbitrary and there's a wide range of deference there's broad deference given to unions in these decisions advocates make these kind of decisions all the time about what evidence to present who to have pretty presenting some documents is irrational it's so far he hasn't shown that it's plausible it was irrational and this information is in his possession at the time his complaint was filed and he could have explained what was so pertinent to these documents what wasn't presented to the grievance hearing he just hasn't done that and likewise with this complaint that this conduct was in bad faith i understand what's being suggested here with this conversation he believes the overheard about the airline tickets and that's all we have and then we need a series of inferences that this was improper we need to infer it was related to his case we have to infer it somehow affected the union's representation in his do you describe the documents in more detail describe what information was kept from the forward that might present a pleading alleging facts that this was an odd decision that requires discovery to understand the motives  to information he could easily have explained what was in the documents that was so important at the grievance hearings here and see what what information did this grievance board need to see that would have resulted in a different outcome he was not alleged any facts supporting that allegation is that correct ms hamilton the grievances in through the collective bargaining agreement may often result in you know essence of the less severe penalty for conduct that might well drugs to fund terminations but in essence there's an argument for mercy or understanding or a nd chance or a last chance so even even if germination could be just  that happens a lot is adamant yes a lot and it happens i can't speak to how often it happens before this particular grievance board but it does certainly happen court has no further questions in summary mr toews allegations were in support of factual allegations have been insufficient to support his allegations that the union's conduct was arbitrary or in bad fa and the decision of the district court should be affirmed thank you thank you honour's individual union members claims are rare in this court those dismissed for failure to state a claim virtually nonexistent i couldn't find a similar case in this court in the union  not for good reason fair representation claims turn and what the union was doing what it was thinking why it did what it did these are questions unanswerable on a twelve b six in the end were swimming in on norms there has been no discovery and only the union can explain whether there was some sort of strategy behind its conduct punishing ta for not knowing what the union was doing or not knowing he was being led astray turns the notion of notice pleading moreover this is a good complaint it gave the union notice it was clear in review denotable in doing these allegations in favor of top the court should give him an opportunity to develop this case mr tata had twenty eight years with united airlines and the union treated this treated him with all the concern of an elephant