us that mandates or makes discovery compulsory in this type of your creation if it would be the a deprivation of fundamental due process if an individual one should not engage in for injury forum shopping in order to choose the facts avenue in which to challenge an action that has been taken against against him there are there is there is uniformity in federal law in in the women in a way which which the arbitrator granted in relation to one of their ah there there were there were two to two comparatives that that the  position it was you know somebody who made a mistake in a fact and was determining full stop the union did not seek any information other than the two individuals who they believed were were comparative for this for the reason that that the individuals who were involved in the terminations of the grieving in this case were that were the same individuals who union did not see any other information other than those two are the there or there was a point where we had requested the initial information the agency indicated that it was not supplying any information whatsoever relating to those individuals and the the assumption the fact that the union had was that the agency was stating that it would not supply any information because it didn't believe it had an obligation to supply any information in any area so that so that question was never asked is wh that that specific question was never asked because of the response the agency gave fact it was not it had no obligation to engage in discovery i'm sorry paid no obligation to respond to any and he any discovery requests what is it you were trying to discover and you have this information in the record with regard to what happened to these two employees you made your argument as to why that's relevant to your case and the other side said no there's no relationship between his and the charges against your client for firearms problems and lack of candor and what happened in the other cases what what else we could have changed the outcome or really had a breach of all that and what the conclusions drawn here by the other trailer well what would change the outcome was that the arbitrator under threat of closing the hearing intimately involved and had control over the disciplining of another individual who had lied under oath under penalty of perjury and and and who had not been charged with lack of can and who had been charged with with with the offense of conduct unbecoming in order to show the fact that the government had different criteria in terms of understanding was that the arbitrator did not permit me to explore anything i was not permitted to even question witnesses on on those aspects and the key witness circumstances are dead on the grieving in this case had his weapon stolen from his vehicle he initially when he reported it had indicated that he had recognize that his statement was inaccurate accurate and he gave a written statement that day and he gave a written statement to two weeks later in which he was fully forthcoming with the the is prevented from of chaining information will leading to his defenses if if the arbitration process s a a a a bridges some on rights as contrasted with an appeal to the merit system to protection board there is a fundamental unfairness because and agency is only obligated to give information in order to support it both parties are required to which here to the wall before principle gauge one of the union's motion for dues documents conceded that the master agreement doesn't address the issue and information request agency decides to treat that person differently by by labeling that act in something which is minor that is something bad that would show a disparity in jersey and there's of the word pri the article three of the collective bargaining agreement gives the right to information necessary for the representation of employees pursuing grievances that is the avenue for getting information the what's pretty proc right that's correct your honor it's broader and it will apply to any information that the grievance needs in pursuing its his or her grievance so is that what happened here i mean the arbitrator didn't like it they say you're getting no information he that since this is going to that grievance article three that he did not have the authority to to look at that that this would have to be another grievance and that he didn't have the authority to look at what he  and one of a motion to quash the the subpoenas for information and the arbitrator granted and so the arbitrator decided that both the evidence was not relevant and that he did not have the authority evidence if if the evidence hasn't been taken what if there's a lot of evidence in the public record there's evidence of the jag evidence was before the arbitrator at that time there's enough evidence in the public record to understand the conduct and of course the charges most importantly that were brought against mr olson and no charges were actually brought against mr matthew this seems to be a fundamental unfairness in in the arbitrator looking at evidence on the record and of this is enough and not allowing someone who has chosen to take arbitration arbitration route to present the evidence that they feel is relevant to their case shouldn't  or springing that i mean it could make the arbitration go on for indefinite period to allow the many trials of other grievances to allow this type of non clearly non relevant evidence and i want to remind the co that the context here the comparator evidence is brought in to raise issues about the douglas factor about the consistency of the penalty imposed for the same or similar offenses so if we're not talking about evidence about someone who's charge there for four discovered there is a mechanism for information requests under article three which is it is where the grievance can get information so there is it's not that the agency's withholding information it's a question of how that information is produced but under either of those schemes there's no basis for saying that not relevant information should come in information about grievances where the same or similar charge wasn't made and then on i'm sorry on it and panels and penalty correct d because with the idea of this douglas marcus you have the reason i say that as matthew is resigning correct your honor there was no charge there and there are no penalty and the question issue is whether the penalties are different just citing official a different time period all of these things show that that in this case these two were compared and it's not relevant evidence under any discovery or information but when you look at the that document there were two lack of candor charges and one was it was found to be substantiated the other was and of course it's a substantiated one that led to the the charge in passing in that memo the report suggests that this may have been caused by stress of the situation that the an accurate statement may have been caused by stress of the situation but the agency just looked at the mythical versions of the story we're not talking about just two stories the story changed over time there were multiple versions and different explanations on what what mr operator was doing that morning and the fact that it took him so long to come up with this correct and lo to all these variations led the agency to conclude and a reasonable person could conclude that it wasn't the shock of the situation he wasn't relying on his routine if he was relying on his routine it would have gone from one story to the truth  in an instant but when once he cleared his mind but the fact he had so many varying explanations and stories that could lead any reasonable person to believe and led the agency to believe that it wasn't the shock it was his attempts to conceal the tru that would have to be to have to be disclosed and i don't disagree with you about and also the agency is entitle to hold its law enforcement officers up to the highest standards as far as being forthright and being in their possession how they evaluated that evidence in order to determine whether there was a consistency in the in the way that in fact they determined what type of charges should have been imposed on individuals and whether there was a slipping in and look at the twelve douglas criteria there was no discussion as as to whether the penalty was for insistent with the a penalty on others there was no no discussion about his past work thank you both parties can