to take liberties in describing their letter the fact that they used the word clarify or asking for a clarification i believe is the word they used doesn't mean that it was a clarification however well then you should say that instead of just saying that the union asked to expand  for whatever reason or whatever they did report earlier in weren't demanding a change but that i guess doesn't mean th decision was analyzing the prior practice of the company and in that part of his decision he notes and actually concludes that prior to the changes that were made peabody western had been in compliance with the agreement he couldn't have been notices here as i have retained jurisdiction over this matter and as the company did not raise an objection to your request for clarification did you not raise an objection to this your honor peabody did not respond in any manner whatsoever didn't consent to his retain jurisdiction over implementation that's something he put in his own award in actually that objective it wasn't directed to it wasn't responded to in one way or another and the collective bargaining agreement actually starts with an arbitrator struck stiction extends only it's just a real violation and just a violation of federal law so where do we go here are you saying that he had no jurisdiction no happened here though was that he issued a final and a very complete award seven months later the union asked him to extend that award to another group of employees and over a year after the initial war he addressed that request this is a case that clearly fall the issue of the dragline crew was included and raised and submitted to the arbitrator and the district court so found and articulated five specific reasons or findings that support the conclusion that the dragline crew was included and these are found it excerpts of record one thirty eight one thirty nine in the just records opinion but these  included the fact that the grievance was a class action grievance on behalf of all represented employees which did not exempt the dragline employees and neither party exempted the dragline crew the second point they're finding is that the union did not example dragline crew and its agreements were brief and the arbitrator did not exempt the dragline crew in the initial award the third finding was that the testimony affected by the new rule it shows that prior to the new rule the dragline crew did report early the but what he showed was that they didn't report to the parking lot early and that's what the contract provides for but he went on to say that now the company wants the employees ready to leave at seven forty five one the mantrip which is a mining term for the method of transport to the work site the key here is that the new requirement went beyond just simply reporting to the dragline crew reporting to the parking lot fifteen minutes early went to the requirement that the  be on the buses headed to work from the parking lot fifteen minutes early which as the arbitrator pointed out of necessity that the employee that dragline employees and the other employees report to the parking lot even earlier than fifteen minutes before starting time so indeed the new rule did affect the dragline crew and the arbitrators summary of the testimony of mr lupo in particular shows that before they are ok that's the key distinction and they are sure to recognize that he said that that clearly violates language of article eighteen and requires these dragline employees to come to the parking lot even parking lot of what they are required to report to the parking lot fifteen minutes prior to the regular starting time which is what the contract language provides for all employees there's no separate treatment provided for dragline and the point that well the are this record also pointed out that the arbitrator implicitly ruled in the original warrant that the requirement they be on buses headed to work fifteen minutes prior to starting time conflicted with the agreement actually as i point out in the brief they are which later expressly stated that for the employees to be headed to work on buses fifteen minutes prior violated the agreement or finally the letter award specifically stated that requiring the dragline crew to be on the bus is fifteen minutes prior to start time was not in compliance with you w now the court properly pointed out that it really doesn't matter whether the dragline crew had a different prior practice because the key issue in this case is whether or not the drag line crew schedule was included raised and submitted included within the grievance that's the key question so the court probably determined that there is no disputed material fact with respect to the reporting requirement since the key question is whether or not the dragline cr prior practices and customs reference that prior to the changes that were made the company appeared to be in strict compliance with article eighteen section he summarized the testimony in the award and the testimony in the award describing the practices did not establish a prior practice of the dragline crew boarding buses fifteen minutes prior to starting time to be transported to the work site furthermore he was also saying that as to all employees there was no such requirement or no such practice and therefore there was no conflict in prior practice the but the point that your honor and then it also is that this is a matter that the so i think that it that you know that's a very important factor to know now i think the consent argument and that is the fact that it's very important also to take note of that is  pointed out and established an undisputed the employer did not consent to the arbitrators retention of jurisdiction or to the arbitrator deciding that the question of whether the dragline crew was included the consent can be implied by crime conduct and there are specific methods for preserving the question the question of the arbitrators jurisdiction for judicial review when i was saying is that the employer consented to the arbitrators authority to issue the clarification letter and fail to preserve the issue of arbitron realty through judicial determination and under the landmark case of george day george day establishes there are ways to preserve this objection and they were remaining didn't respond at all as has been acknowledged here today by the attorney for the employer the rationale of course i think it's important to recognize that the z con case which involved and alter ego question which is the question of our building whether or not this alter ego developer company w expired you have anything else you have to tell us thank you my last point is that the pack case which recognizes that the courts render extreme deference to the arbitrators determination the scope of the issue is especially important in this case too because of these strong principles of death judicial deference to labor arbitration awards thank you very