particular angle the court doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction section three one of the labor magill relations act does give the federal judiciary authority that jurisdiction to hear cases involving bridges between labor unions and employers in risk the supreme court found that an action under section three zero one was appropriate where the arbitrator's decision was final and binding that this decision is under the finality of it we were to agree with you will there ever be a bifurcated arbitration again i believe there will i think it is often the case that unions and employers yeah that's often the case but it's going to be after this argument if you win it i can't see why anybody or anybody would agree to a bifurcated arbitration if you can appeal half of the arbitration well the circuits already accept that only one jobs monitor so this person always hears every you know it anyway comes up will help you know to shade the facts and all you can have the facts to make the argument but i thought i read this record to say everything both the violation of the understanding of the a memorandum and then the remaining all of that was submitted to the arbitrator am i wrong about their oh i submitted your honor is that for him to decide if that comes to now going to do all that in front of an arbiter that's not what you understand submitted to me well in the context in which i'm using some of the it wasn't in my cards it can't they didn't you agree to submit everything about the remedial phase why doesn't this lead to just a regime of of piecemeal appears i mean the whole mainstay of the relationship between a pellate district courts rise and twelve ninety one which is the final judgment group and and and that's absolutely essential to judicial to this view to the efficient resolution of disputes which is a is a principle which transcends a particular argument here and i don't understand how the district court and as if it goes into effect it most certainly will affect what you think your rights are is anything changed at blakeney are you hiring differently than you would do you were hiring before this decision no so then it has no this decision at this point at this point has had no will won't impact on anybody's rights in the work in the workplace it has a big impact on you have to answer my question as as any impact in the workplace now i mean by that but beauty's howry firing who they have to consider whether or not they have to take union members well the change of policy based on this decision shouldn't and there are arguments on both sides obviously but if it doesn't fit the real war rights why should we take in until everything is done and then take if you consider as one can use because your hon doesn't affect anybody in the real world any and by that i mean any rights at that facility what why should we override the general premise i know this is not a final judgment jurisdiction case but that final judgment and that will be a matter for the court to decide it's hallock parys presented the issue and that's that those circuits in which they do not adopt the bridge will rely on the parties to decide what they want to do in terms black beauty itself has employees and conducts operations and has done so during the same period of time so if the so a current or grandfather issue could beat law under the arbitration but that's always the case in a in the decision to that you know we like the answers to this part of the case sooner or later but this is different in that because of the legal issue get to be heading in the same direction that it is isn't this whole problem one that can be resolved contractually by agreeing to other trade only part a controversy i don't think you need you know freedom of contract principles which seem to suggest that you are at liberty to submit as much or as little over operation unless you can track witness well that's correct the problem is that once you do go to arbitration none of the language that has that the parties could come up with so all the courts concerned about piece make it so obvious to us does it i've never seen that in your contracts it would launch a whole new way to collect but i will let me say this i just want to make it clear to all this and i would add in addition i think i here and i appreciate the opportunity to address this issue as you know we did not cross appeal on the district court's decision on jurisdiction there was not because we abandoned the decision that we have not been in the position intervene that's correct and we believe that that would be the appropriate outcome unfortunately it would probably cause well it's sort of i wouldn't say we called it surely wouldn't help the fact that this case has been going on for eight years now  and that's the problem with piecemeal litigation this case is the poster child for the problems that can be caused by piecemeal litigation and frankly the abuse of the parties agreement to bifurcate which has important  what you just articulated is consistent with the general presumption in favor of libertarian but the courts have pushed for many years they've developed a system for resolving labor relations that keeps these disputes out eight u s c twelve nine hundred one where you were really getting to the to the heart of the issue when asking are anybody's rights affected that yes i will measure just that question why are you here today arguing that we should not kotori appeals permitted to the outcome of the case would be conclusively determined by the issue the matter of appeal was collateral to the merits and this gets your point the matter was affectively unreviewable if immediate appeal were not allowed i think it would maybe even go further than that that is if the arbitration may be proceeding for another year or two by everybody's estimation but there's been some determination that substantively changed the rights of your members cases that we've cited in our brief find that a court lex subject matter distinction under three a one for review of arbitration wars but i also look at the word that's the way the courts have interpreted final and binding to me to mean in some cases a decision that might only resolve liability but not damages other courts have found that you need a complete resolution of everything's in order for there to be a final and binding decision but to be quite candid with you your honor i looked at a third circuit case which such a distinction between professional standing or a potential jurisdiction or actual statutory jurisdiction doesn't really matter not being the same thing but i thought that's the distinction between jurisdiction yes and prudential yes predicted that there had to be a final judgment as we normally have in a twelve ninety one we would not have jurisdiction in this  absence of such language which parties can contract to include what you're left with is the general presumption that's been pushed very aggressively by the supreme court appropriately so in labor cases that dispute should really be resolved  arbitration as it's the most efficient way of resolving the disputes and so unless you've got that kind of clear language that presumption should control and should inform the potential analysis and you made that point when w with peabody black beauty but in the national agreement we have a provision that says that the parties can go directly to federal court and bypass the arbitration procedure altogether in cases involving successorship we also have a provision that says see judicial enforcement or to test the operation award or yes or you could look you could constrain it right you could say that it should only happen after we have a completed you can say you could say neither party will contest you the party what circumstances we'll go to court to appoint is the overarching principle here is your ability to construct the framework of the operation the way you want to do it time will or rights have been affected yet yes or no that's absolutely correct and anything that has happened can be addressed either by media lab action with media orders damages or whatever and it would be much better to do it that way in fact thought as a whole process to get through all the determinations to get to the final determination to see where you stood and at c n n you could argue or feel like talk about any adjustments maybe should of maybe have been made to make it exactly the proper answer to the whole question absolutely yes your honor and in this case when we agreed to bifurcate as we often do it is true and we by the way we want a lot of the ability to bifurcate cases when we agree to b beautiful forum and i love the city of richmond no complaints your honor but i just don't think it's the best way to resolve labor relations disputes and it's just it's inefficient for the employers and the company i think in this case let me see if i understand your yes if you win positions at black beauty should go to our pool of laid off miners and to the extent that they have not but the company has not honored that obligation going back to the years there  what ever name it's there or in effect an affirmative defense a lot of building not a production dangerous you're looking at the contractor issue yes generally yes but there is a concern i have arbitrator as part of his order says that the employees of the contractor need to leave the work site because the jobs that they're holding should have been offered to our laid off employees pursu beauty i don't know whether the employer or the contractor might come back and say that there is a new eighty allegation having to do with the impact of disagreement on united minerals could potentially be out there would go to whether there's a secondary boycott that affects united minerals a third party contract are you going to be out given the fact of the arbitration ruling is the liability is there any possibility that a case like this settled on the issue of damages i mean and as that would be another prudential consideration that would argue in favor of allowing  a lot of opportunity for us but if you want i'm so happy to feel the question as my time is running up that's what i was trying to get to earlier i've been feeling a lot of requests and so i don't leave any bits been wasted but that's another main point i want to make is that when we agreed to b cate this case it was a lot of just for that type of negotiation over a potential remedy and the record reveals that and in fact it's in the company's brief on jurisdiction i believe it's on page twelve where our agreement to bifurcate is set forth in the footnote and m a lot of role of play in the joints on that and compromise more so perhaps than liability and so i think i can see from that's why i think that it is a credential consideration to allow the except the offending employer cannot save save the day so when you think about this and reflect on whether this case should be barred from appeal at this point if you decide i want a complete arbitration standard for this circuit it would be important to note that even in those circuits where  the courts have favored that approach there are legions of cases where the fact they did hear the merits prior to the complete arbitration and i i do submit that this is a case that even for the court to go ahead and rule on it and other sort of it's done in certain cases even applying the the privilege will rule because otherwise i suspect the odds are we'll be back again