with the government accountability project that's the address  the court can see that it's going to tell if you a completely different focus than the parties where are you and i think that's that where the parties were arguing something completely different where the lower court didn't deal with the issue at are the department of labor and the alleged retaliating employer because the department of labor strikes are factually important public policies so the flow of information under these environmental statutes in this case of th department of energy can properly regulate the knowledge taliesyn that would cut off that flow of information and so it's completely within the within the authority of the government that by the time that reaches to look at whether or not there has then that's just the four corners whether or not if you're spared alcohol but whether or not there has and change of circumstances in that regard i would  so what you have is a situation here where you have westinghouse savannah river and after just one month is signed but before it's adopted by the secretary of labor three of the employees of westinghouse employer is continuing on on a course of misconduct could there be an additional action there probably could be depends on these a very short statute of limitations thirty days or could the department of labor in  issue and that's what was a question is whether or not the a new r v for a new administration can without notice to the parties simply go ahead and say we case this case really is about whether or not it was breached in terms of what the fundamental issue underlying issue was that made the previous decision fairly around the approve or disapprove based on on this whether it's fair adequate and reasonable and the secretary approves an agreement that's fair adequate and reasonable whether grievance has been breached by one of the those that's what where the question has that that we have here is not of the agreement was operative because the benefits were paid to mr truth and not just the money which was they were really talking about the breach question that was the question on which it was not fair adequate and reasonable so that it's not a different question in terms in making that conclusion is the same that the secretary it's not in the statute for the secretary to do more than approve or disapprove that's the secretary cannot go into the writing of an agreement and make decisions to change it that was the it hasn't been approved by the court yet no one would argue that you could have the bridge if you had a divorce settlement you didn't have the required approval by the court no one would argue that you could have a breach before the court said yes to no or refined in this way why is this different well i'm not sure that i'm correct then to say that it's different i just think that the rulings that the secretary has made and and understood my understanding of the case law is that that something or disapproving something that she shouldn't have been involved with in terms of the status of the case to begin with that is the clearly erroneous i think it was that underlying reasons were the i would think she could that happen here no therefore could decided that the earlier disapproval was an appropriate now the next thing the secretary would have to decide it seems to make any changes before the board during this period and and so i would argue that the board did consider that ok ok we do think there was no instance question  breach was addressed in the party's brief to the board and in fact ruud had ample opportunity because westinghouse have argued in detail about a lot of the case and ruud elected not to do it in detail so therefore we would couldn't be presented to the board for approval and for that westinghouse engaged in fraud because it didn't intend to abide by it when it entered into it and during the hearing ruth said the reason i'm putting in all this information about south carolina  these individuals when they were employed by westinghouse never intended to abide by it because when they left westinghouse a much less house that had a river they continued to they continue to discriminate so court we argued that he had released his claims in the settlement agreement and mr root's response was well that the agreement was void for fraud and the washington state court rejected  like i believe that it least requires that the while the parties are until the secretary of labor i think the point to secretary labor's approvals to make sure that there's not overreaching  time then i think we would probably have an action to recover them for money having receiver or something like that but but in any event the washington state court has has treated it as a