case really was severed and dismissed what remains are two basic collective bargaining agreement related issues on which the board air below alleged post contract expiration change by seal hospital contractual wage increases by north national labor policy and by applying a clear and unmistakable waiver standard to a contract coverage issue so something else happened in twenty seventeen we had together the decision wilkesbarre right that's right so quo that should have been applied and we're exploring should apply here is the status quo at the day of the contract expired when the contract aspired wages were set that is what kat that it's the law of the circuit and i don't know what you're saying the solution what so here your honor we have a provision if you're looking at the one you have a car a complete provision that section five is connected to and we cannot parse and should not parse out those provisions they are they are one in the same they are connected or not one in the same two distinct provisions and all the flies as is subject to the the step program stops at the end of the contract and nothing of this kind and that's that's the point of the status quo doctrine is that it should have been set at that time as exactly the wages were in place in under our first theory if degrees meaning i own my appropriate they get an automatic stock increase that's why would i be making x now and when my stuff increased time comes i get why that's who i am at that moment thirteen twelve thirteen or fourteen and entered into an agreement which moves any of the information requests that one twenty or am worked was seeking and are still issued before the court today he just does the new agreement include the the the the benefits issue we were dealing with information requests which is free to all employees and c e o there is no cost associated with that e p o point and did the hospital offer accommodations to address it being at the stage where you need to offer combinations we still were not comfortable with and i believe this is demonstrated back and forth communications between the shop and i learned this song of the the relevance of the information for us it depends on which one o categories are talking about your honor but let's talk about the comments i'm thinking about the claims information which i thought was sort of the focus so there are there are three subcategories information one is the what was primus  of providing the benefit one was how what is the utilization of outside providers and one was we're also looking for the it's called and asked dash d r g information that's a medical severity  provider whose coding that's done by the medical staff to determine what exactly the the what is being treated for but that's all it shows what is being treated for since i saw your position oh i'm sorry  interrupt you but your position is that there are two stages to the analysis and the first stage the onus is on the union in requesting the information to establish that it's relevant to their obligations in representing their members and relevant to marketing and then once you're satisfied that the information that they've made a relevance case then under our decision isis has in company the onus would be on your client to establish to to say you know we've got some proprietary confidentiality issues here haven't we provided to you in such and such a manner and your view your position is that that second you never have that obligation because you  and i think one of the things even if the default or the you know the sensible thing with these employees is that they be covered by their employers services as the place is the default they're trying to figure out what that's worth to their membership and therefore you know i mean we all know these plans look good on paper but then when you actually go and try to get the services you know how does it actually roll out in their members expense but wouldn't that be we cannot as a as a because we are health care provider we are a hospital and crime is a hospital operator we can say it costs us x dollars per employee because that's where pain shortstop you want to claim comes in and self assured claims a so that information if it had been that if if we had been a normal employer or any health care provider not a hospital that is just doing business as providing health care that the courts have said i think clearly the cost providing benefits is relevant but that every every one of those cases is our insurance cases i say so yourself you're saying because you're actually providing the services those costs aren't relevant to i would think it would almost be more relevant because it's not just one sticker price it's you know hey we're providing you actual services and it may seem like a little thing when you come in and get your infection checked out but actually in terms of like sticker price on essentially to do a financial full financial analysis of it's starting let's say with the hospital cost of operating drilling down to what it cost a doctor to put a band aid on you those numbers don't exist like they do any insurance context is we're not just writing a check it's a full breakdown of a profit loss this kind of thing it's a profit all right and so and that's a little bit i mean i understand that to be wrapped up in the objection you didn't make which is this that this is proprietary information but i didn't take you to be is not an insurance plan at all and to underlie the lack of relevance of this to parties bargained over and entered into a collective bargaining agreement that under which is not the record but under which providence you know in this case is this offering any employees agreed to take the e p o plan and zero cost there is no relevance to that decision pride had told them potential misuse of the information and as you said one of the things that was animating and seen as response was the past experience is there anything that one can lawfully do in a situation  and we need it and that's assuming for purposes of i have that all that that is just true it is relevant and they do need it and it also is susceptible of being used in a way that you find then what does the law  detriment of the private health care operations including c e o to the detriment of the actual employees who read i understand that's your position but i'm saying what's the law on if if both things are present  potential detrimental use their judgment is otherwise i don't think it's detrimental but potential detrimental use in your view but also clearly relevant to bargaining what's polearm how you relevance decision but there is not an obligation provided in that very unique context of a limited context i agree with your are and i'll also add that we don't believe that and that's the argy data is relevant here given as nothing to do with quality of because it was a result of the very last minute settlement between prime and you h w r our brief was do i believe a month before wilkes barre issued and we had it ready to go then the settlement happens  four months later i came back to the brief i stripped everything out that had to do with each of you check my sides to make sure they had been overruled but i did not do any additional research i did i just didn't know if that was some signal that no that was not that is not a signal of of  any sort in fact and we certainly agree with the union in this case that works for is the determinative governing case and that the you know in any sort of factual differences that  pride may point to are negligible and that really weak what we have here as in wilkes barre are two contractual provisions that create distinct rights that operate independently of each the employment of each individual employee and therefore it continues that way after the contrary expires on one one point that mr khan was making this the status quo point i believe the the court actually specifically rejected that argument in wilkes barre when it said page three seventy four it said that the hospital was arguing with essentially that to define the status quo you have to take a snapshot of each individual and pay at the on the end of the contract and that's not what you do what you do is you take the contract as it exists on that last day and you import those terms for it and as the contract existed on that last day you had a set of of wages corresponding to each  nurse category and their levels of experience and that that grid continues to exist going forward once the contract expires and that's why you have even though you are stuck in terms of the basic wages for each level those will not continue to change your by year you can still progress with in each of these wage levels based on your experience  whether the weather information is relevant is not based on the employer's field of work it's based on the union's needs in order to correctly and adequately represent its member because because in this case the employer wasn't just going to provide the medical care the employer made clear that it was going to hype the costs that it was going to ask each employee to pay for perceiving that medical care wasn't providing that medical care for free it said going in and i'll let mr to discredit me if i'm wrong but it said going at some point the union knew that the employer had done that with another hospital and then at some point indeed during these negotiations prime came along and said now going forward no we don't want to change our e p o our p p o system but we do want employees to pay more and so in that instance the union is entitle to know what the costs are so that it can first see if the employer's rates are justified or negotiate concessions elsewhere or also the union is entitle to propose suggestions of accommodations changes within the existing insurance framework in order to reduce the costs for its members and why does he issue not as prime has argued given that you now have successfully negotiated an agreement without the information that you requested because that issue isn't raised in the brief i cannot rattle off the dozens of bar cases that i'm sure exist that say that you can't just simply say that because you know you've reached an agreement despite not providing information or the nicer you have a more practical answer to well i mean i can think of it and i thought that quite clearly because the regardless of whether the ultimately reached agreement the fact that the employer did not provide the information in question places the unit at a disadvantage during the negotiation where it can't see where it's kind of working in the dark and also it can't be the true bargaining partner that it should be in any contract had been issued in the board's orders as it stands if during compliance the employer wants to argue that it's no longer necessary to provide that information they can but the board order as it stands say that you completely devoid of information on that but what is what is clear is that certainly the negotiations would have progressed differently if prime had been more forthcoming in providing that information when the union requested it my senior information your answer has to be yes you don't know in what particular i mean it sounds like in the new agreement they have agreed not to require co pay is that pretty much what i just learned that today ok so that's something that presumably to get back benefit of your bottom line answer to me seems to be that this is a matter for complaint in terms that as far as the remedy goes whether prime should provide the information as ordered by the board same now your honor this is this is my most my state solution based on my understanding of the compliance process but it in my limited experience that the fear is flexibility during the complete compliance process for employers and unions to work together is and resolve issues like that if the union however explains that it's you know still needs information from one reason or another than you know that will have to be sorted out than i realize my time is do you want an answer to your dual use your do information use i just want to say that the the board law and apologized to the board law on that issue is that unless the employer can show that public after a certain time so this is not information that would not have been available to the union some point and then finally we'd like to point out that that whole bad faith argument really is just a smokescreen because it only addresses it only deals with the medicare d r g coding information there's a host of other information that is unrelated to that the prime did not provide thank thank you very much from long ago held that just because it takes long for these cases to progress to the process that it still is and a successor contract is reached that doesn't move the case and in fact a remedial barking orders important for the strongest argument is that the contract that was reached in two thousand and fourteen expires this year and so we're going to be back at the table and health care the health care issue hasn't gone away but isn't it before the jury that they didn't they didn't timely resists objection correct proprietary you can't bargaining wouldn't the whole point of the federal labor law structure is that the unique income and be an equal partner and understand where the employers come from on his positions and meaning did not raise the subject that's correct if you look through the three letters that miss shott miller raised nowhere in any of those did she raised proprietary or confidential information and in fact in two locations she does and at that same time raise an accommodation that the union can respond to it's very much it needs to be immediate and at the table for this entire process to be successful and because congress intended raising things  later doesn't make this process work and so that's why the burden is on the parties to you know say their objections at the time and not lawyer at leader i guess there's a separate i mean there's are two questions that were talking about at the same time and one of them is just given the time that passes for everything to be litigated that it seems like are you seeking information with respect to a very past time when really now if you went back facing another bargaining session what you would want is the analogous information but for a more current period is that something that can be dealt with in compliance proceedings yes and i think that would be the appropriate place to do it and certainly it's also important under the the u testing cases cited in the briefs the union is not limited to the employers thinking about about you know any topic we're not limited to the plan that the employer provides there's very legitimate reasons why a employee would want to have their colleagues treating them for very embarrassing medical conditions and so they may not want to be under the plan and what the analysis is is health care benefits are a term a condition of them ploy mentor a benefit of employment and so how you what you do about it the union has a right to you know to put point out other things and g m not for not wanting people choose how they spend their their paycheck and you know the important point here is that the challenges raised weren't raised at the time and even the issue about you know not being in good faith that was only to one aspect of the information request it was only us medicare medicare coding and frankly it was based on a misunderstanding of what the medicare coding would represent in the record it's very clear that the a junction was