a time problem under the contract with the wage claim that your client were were raising and that time issue was the procedural bar that is that is that what that mean are you invoking a sort of a a common law of arbitration principled waiver or are you relying on a specific a specific rule that require on the part of the person instructed to carry out the directive were does not say that they have to raise them all at the same time what were you where do you find it and not rule  well i mean traditional stuff but you have to show the argument that it's not contrary to the one they're currently assert it from prompted the court to make a particular decision how  the how did their representation that if we lose on something mark arbib to believe we should go to america here and how did that in any way influence the decision was the court made that just sounds like a scheduling matter all they're saying complaint was filed by just two thousand somebody here we are in march of two thousand and twenty one and there is never there's never been even get to that point your honor i simply don't know i was actually still high school  thank you mr show we're we're little over time but you have reserve some time so we'll hear from ms rodriguez your are the arbitrator in this case acted correctly and within his authority when accepting and considering bacardi submission dropped regarding procedural arbiter ability while this case was still in the submission favor more specifically the arbitrator's actions in this case were entirely consistent with the language of the regulations that were incorporated into the collective bargaining agreement with respect to the proper time to raise issues of arbiter ability now article thirteen  regulation which was referenced by opposing counsel and this is the controlling section and terms of of this issue as to when the proper time to raise these issues it provides that the parties had to raise the issues of  submission drop prior to the arbitration hearing and the failure to do so with result and such issue is not being considered now that's exactly what the card he did in this case the procedural arbiter ability to found was brave enough submission draft submitted to the  just back in two thousand someone you could have let me correct when the when the when you finally get to it may be when you four or five years it finally comes back to what is supposed to be a merits hearing and then for the st time you raise a procedural articularly issue which you could have raised five or six years ago and thereby trigger another round of peel's and here we are in two thousand and twenty one and this is complained about wages it was final two thousand and seven remains unresolved i mean can that just seems to smack of nothing but gamesmanship on the part of your client a a determined effort to ever avoid having to face the merits of the way each claim it was filed back in two thousand and seven how can that very lengthy now the thing is that the duration or or the amount of time that the case took between the different phases is not attributable to a cardi as you said  before it took six years from the time that the application for arbitration and the st hearing took place there was the appeals process took roughly another two years between the parties there was a change of arbitrator hurricane maria pas the union failed to appear on another one of the hearings and that also required to spelman that was not attributable to bacardi so certainly the delay in time was not attributable to my client and beyond that the limit the only limitation was that it would be done during the commission faith so nothing prevented the carty from from raising that issue so long as that was done during the commission base of the case prior to the hearing on the merits and affording in that sense the union the opportunity to address the issue and present evidence that it that it did comply with a time when i think that the equipment it didn't do so but it did have the opportunity so in that sense it doesn't so it is it is your position that the submission  last indefinitely until such time is there is an actual determination that it's appropriate to have a hearing on the merits no your honor opposition would it through the supreme court raise another one litigate that one raise a rd one i mean this could go on and on indefinitely unless there is some reasonable amount of time set aside to with sounds like in it and that rational interpretation of the the rules and then it rational it ter interpretation what anybody would bargain for that this could go on and on it definitely that is it just doesn't make any sense regulations which is that they have to be submitted prior to the hearing on the merits and it has to be done in writing in a submission draft that's the only limitation that the regulations allow for that's what the parties agree to so indefinitely well until the hearing on the merits commences or those issues of arbiter ability are are decided and if it imposes no burden on you to raise your your defenses in a timely fashion well that's one counsel do you acknowledge that had the arbitrator ruled that you were too late that you had waived you'd had plenty of opportunity before that that was with that would have been within the arbitrators power  it was certainly within the arbitrator already and discretion to determine based on the regulations and interpret whether or not to consider mccarthy's submission dropped at that point yes your honor it was within the  arbitrator discretion and authority to determine whether there was a waiver or not and obviously by accepting and considering and then later adopting bacardi submission i dropped the arbitrator interpreted that that the card had not in fact waived the ability to raise the procedural arbiter ability issue at that stage in which our standard of review on that particular issue the standard our preview is whether the arbitration decision was unfounded count you have about four or five minutes left i think four minutes if you have anything you'd like to add carry on or thank you we just want to sum up by saying that it was within the arbitrator purview to consider bacardis procedural arbiter ability to them and given that the union failed to satisfy the timing of them specificity requirements established in the nd step of the grieving process as outlined in the collective bargaining agreement and fail to present any evidence that it they comply with the nd step of the grieving process the arbitrator acted correctly when dismissing agreements for lack of procedural arb back and they did it they didn't present the grievance letter until august th two thousand and seven so roughly a year and eight months later this was then and this was a strict compliance this term they also made a blanket allegation because they fail to comply with the process the process the nd step of the grievance process established that they had to comply with that timeliness requirement that specific stunned seven business day period otherwise the grievance would be that the notice that they provided was sufficient so once again it's a dispute as to the sufficiency but why is it not eric's issue rather the realty issue such that they that is they failed to specify any of the specifics of the grievance namely and as the arbitrator stated and head toward that the names of the employees affected what their rate of pay grievance process whether they complied with it or not they failed to present any evidence or even address the issue as to whether they did comply with the nd step during their arbitration brief they failed to address with regard to the procedural issues raised by picardy and therefore you don't feel that you need it to submit any more specific objections t arbitrator did you argue that carty had waived the right to even raise the procedure are completely legal i don't i don't think i don't think there was anything but i saw in the arbitrator's decision concludes argument in this case attorney shall an attorney or agree guess you should disconnect from the hearing at this time