arbitrator george twice place arbitration award draws its absence from the collective bargaining agreement under this exceedingly narrow scope of your sole review this court should reverse the district court and enforce arbitrator  galaxy to the collective bargaining agreement and the provisions they are in there anything in the collective bargaining agreement that permitted the arbitrator to look to the concealed carry act in rendering his absolutely he he looked to the the company's extra work along on workplace violence and then he found that he could not apply to the grievance action of bringing a firearm arbitrator cannot find that there is clear contract language and then refuse to apply that clear contract language it because of external law the issue before the arbitrator and roadmaster was whether the companies notice to terminate the collective bargaining agreement defeated the rollover provision of the contract if the notice was insufficient then the contract with every new or rollover the arbitrator found that the rollover probation was clear and unambiguous and that if followed that and then the company in effect terminate the contract then he chose to ignore that clear contract language whether this was to nation or an unjust terminations i agree completely just causes ambiguous by its very nature and the road mask had to do with  asked to interpret and apply a company's work rules as part of a just cause analysis is arbitrator fleshly was asked to do here that analysis involves an examination of whether the facts make up a violation of the assorting to determine whether it's equitable or fair to apply work in light of the facts and the circumstances of the case arbitrator twice we found that he did in fact violate the workplace rule but that this case involves the possession of a firearm on the company's parking lot but the implications far beyond the issue of guns in the workplace employers make all kinds of workplace rules on all kinds of topics  infidelity to the contract when he refused to apply the company's unilateral workplace rule in light of external law if the law were expanded to require fidelity to a company's workplace pool we have strayed pretty far field and letting the company write the contract this would render the just cost provision of the contract meaningless if you don't have any further questions at this time siegel out of our present amber in illinois company in this case this case presents awful situation where the employer has failed to obtain what it paid for law and his own interpretation of that internal law by doing that as this taught in the roadmaster case the arbitrator as acted beyond the scope of the collective bargaining agreement and outside  found that the grievance indeed had a firearm on the company property the arbitrator concluded that the workplace violence policy contained a ru i agree with that but the concept of just cause is also not unlimited and as the supreme court taught in the steelworkers trilogy the arbitrator says florida is still derive from the collective bargaining of positively promulgated work real well more precisely what we're arguing here is that the interpretation and application of external law was directly contrary to the work in that that work world was a product of the collective bargaining relationship and therefore a component of the collective bargaining agreement and what evidence do you have in the record to support that the policy or the union specifically waived are going over the policy in the contract or the employer unilaterally implemented it but the union acquiesced in that  of those three things must have happened because the union here did not challenge the employer's right to implement the policy but isn't that separate from saying that the wall the shop so to speak the law of the shop being things like past practice collective bargaining history and other components of the relationship between the parties those are collective bargaining relationship between the parties and i believe the district court recognized that fact and i respectfully request the sco simply isn't true employers implement work rules all the time on mandatory subjects of bargaining in our patrol law is quite clear that a union can't wait until that that policy is implemented or applied in the form of discipline to challenge it for being reasonable or unlawful if you don't have any further questions like you do if you understand that you could bring it outside or thanks to both counsel it was taken under advisement