argument we'll be focusing specifically on the issues regarding representation to be a fair representation of this clown he was a member of the international machinists and aerospace workers union and was working at the u r s facility until he had a pennsylvania during the course of her work there there was a company wide layoff that impact her she was working as and three which is an electrical tech three she two forms one form was to indicate what your job history was besides the jobs they held or positions and she felt that document indicated that she both worked as an equi other work either in the same job classification or the jobs last cation she had snort yet this document was filled out and she indicated that she didn't want to bump into other work if there was no work for her this the layoff he sat for a table test which was required of any individuals that wanted to work in the two jobs classification at the time he failed the test and as a result d was laid off unfortunately equipment cleaner jobs that she didn't have seniority d joe whole and were open at the time of the layoffs were not made available to her this starts the dispute of facts that really becomes the major issues that spring from this case now when she filled out the form she filled out the two forms  specifically indicated she wanted to bump it she specifically indicated that she had worked as a clear when the jobs when she was laid off she had enough seniority to hold a job as an equipment cleaner that job was not offered back with from one classification to the other without applying they were randomly called and brought back in terms of what she did everybody randomly told was a based on seniority was based on so you are incorrect but they were out of work and were busy brought back not because they're applied for work or went to the website they were brought back to work and an internal operations were wired that they go to this master list that was in place and available to all parties to look by us during the course of the contract after the collective bargaining agreement was placed now having said that she was moving from eighty two to three to any teacher who so making her take the test was within the rules of the collective bargaining agreement however because the test was in place and because the test just placed other shoe members into the workplace this test impacted her and her signori so now she has two hurdles to overcome one she's not been given an opportunity to work in the jobs that she had stored for the equipment clear position and to for work she called her union saying that she heard other people who were being brought back to work and they told me they were looking to get back george now after course of two years she loses their seniority and unfortunately it happened she was out of work more than two years she kept trying to come back and she was hired back ism by u r s's a pager helper after that year period of time now one of the issues that becomes problematic is once she's brought back to work now she finds out about you thin she finds out about the individuals that were brought back to work before her with less seniority and that they both had lost wages and seniority reinstated where she did not so that begins to grievance crossness this matter and when she files a grievance process that that also is a major part of this case the way the grievances handled is that the union decides to take the grievance and file it is a grievance and go through the step was an informal meeting between representatives of the union and the company and if not all the time to requires an informal meeting well there is an informal meeting but that really is unclear if there is anything that's actually done on this at point so the next step would be arbitration now the union does tell chloe on several occasions that the matter is proceeding to arbitration and or is in architrave which is not correct they also require her to and here's our brief indicates the bump formals loss by u r s rebecca carter was contacted by miss clooney she's the head of human resources she writes an e mail to her supervisor saying i guess we can tell her it was misplaced after the course of two years supervisor says don't do that we don't know if we have it or not and then nothing really happens at that point except the union kind of keeps trying to get misquoted to produce the documents m does try to produce the documents but she's unsuccessful she there's nothing for her to get you can't find pay stubs that are now over twelve years old and what then becomes the mean issue of this case is that when we decide to pose this card rebecca card she indicates that there's a master list that everybody has the plant manager has a union people have and that indicates the jobs that these people work the date of their hires and if there was any layoffs this document was sufficient for all arbitrary act by the union and it was impossible for her to complete that task she had requests that she did she actually filed in formal complaint with a formal complaint with the company asking for them tiriel she had several phone calls with the union went back to car and what was supposed to happen once there was supposed to be this conference call with rebecca card the plant manager the union and it never took place for no one really it just didn't take place scheduled to take place and this document has not been found it is not found discovery and it's not been found through the union grievance process and that forms the basis for in the evenings decision to not further pursue her grievance and that is the position that we're taking that in this case in reality there was no need for this document were to make miss cloudy try to access the that material was assessable in the master list that was available to everybody moreover her you know representative worked alongside her and knew that she worked in these capacities so although he had approved the case he was his deposition and he had stated that your honor so i think that's sufficient from that point secondarily one of the issues that then develops is that there was a settlement agreement between you r s and the union regarding this eighty two cable test that many of the individuals that were displaced receive so many benefits they receive your stored seniority they receive training to be able to complete the t in itself was negotiated by the union it was signed off by the union and union selected the people that were supposed to be at the settlement the individuals in the settlement the district court had reviewed this and wrote up the opinion in the sense that well she wasn't easy to get time to grievance pre dated her layoff so she really didn't qualify well that really is not the issue this is what looked at this in terms of reviewing the refunds and the people had been displaced from the cable shop in each issue and working outside of the cable shop the company actually initiated a lawsuit middle district of pennsylvania after the arbitration or tried to set aside in then directly impacts miss clowney that's restated her grief she then becomes similar to anybody else that was impacted by this cable test and received settlement benefits sheet metal workers painters your honors and corning colleagues it's been some time result of that it did decide that the union had not reached its to be a fair representation and so probably dismiss this case my role here is pretty limited so to the extent  master list is comprised of what a comp can verify their positions were and then also comprised of information that is gotten from a questionnaire distributed to the employees and which side was there prior position so it does not without other documentation verify that the employees actually held those other positions in the other companies so i think does a fairly significant distinction because her company's obligation to put some went into a position it is the employee's obligation under the collective bargaining agreements to notify the company of their intent to be recalled into another skill class the case so in order understanding but my understanding also is that she's not the only one who wasn't easy who tried to go to an eighty two by the pump process took the required test for that and failed it but that the other of these one of the really what it is it isn't that the basis for her claim against the union for lack of fair representation well i think the basis of require against the union is that she was not brought back into work and they didn't advocate are looking to be reassigned they're not looking to bump into the cable shop and the arbitrator and her decision is very clear about that what's in the case of bumping it's a case of trying to be reassigned to another to situation and the arbitrator looking for reassignment take that test the other these other lower skilled people would not have been laid off the union and the employer settle so and there is an there's a remedy i'm out the paper going to be paid it's to have some people going to be allowed to to take some courses at a college when the union was looking at who was going to that she was not part of the layoff in two thousand and twelve and when she was laid off seven months later she was not laid off allison yardy and she wasn't bumped from her position the only reason your honors that she had to take the that she took scituate the september two thousand and twelve situation she took it because you are asked needed to fill two positions in the cable shot in the two classification that's the only reason that that to require that cable test for somebody situated like miss connie under the c t a is that correct if there were open positions that she wanted to bump down into and the cable shop offered the opportunity to take the cable test to bump down and to the cheetah she just would have been laid off which kind of if i met extends to what counsel for the company was the collective bargaining agreement does not say that it doesn't but that responsibility on the company the collective bargaining agreement under the way of provision there's a recall provision the employer is obligated  that he there's no other position to i've worked in i would also like to be called for that but you couldn't tell the employer that and i think that's clearly not i think she testified she still doubt that layoff auction agreement what she did was during the period of her layoff the company started to recall equipment players and her sister was an equipment cleaner her sister always worked in your us as an equipment cleaner so her sister tells recall to that position because i have more seniority but she didn't do that and she admitted at her deposition that she did not do that because she was waiting for you are asked to call her on and because she had about ten months left she was told yeah they did and they were still but our people with less than you are ready for you but she's found her rights and she let her her recall rights run out she doesn't ask her agree that arbitration right because an arbitrary just going to be looking at that collective bargaining agreement is going to see what it sets for because it's going to see what it says for bumping it's going to look at that march th two thousand and thirteen memo that the employer gave to everyone that miss clowney sign that they are separate and distinct and my comments are very limited because quite frankly the evidence with respect to my client the international is incredibly limited and based on that the district judge had every was it was it was proper for him to grant our motion for summary judgment and i would respectfully say that part of his judgment should be affirmed  this honorable court is when i go through like some very decent things with respect to the evidence that was brought forth by the plaintiffs on with respect to my client st there is no dispute that grievances are handled and processed and settled by the district lodge and the local not the international jew that mr clowney only had a handful of contacts with each instance of the international smith who would who later became chief of staff of the international this clowney in her deposition testified that bryant was very kind she testified that mr smith was a very nice person and was always pleasant and she further testified that smith quote afforded her a level of comfort and he lists and she felt like she was being understood that's the evidence with respect to the international that's it no there is no way in which that evidence could be support a claim of a duty of fair representation with respect  to national we didn't act arbitrarily discriminatorily or in bad faith and there's certainly no that evidence doesn't support the notion of what was any other evidence brought to bear to support a notion of vicarious liability a common law agency there's no evidence that the international instigated supported ratified were encourage any of the any of the purported conduct of either the district lodge or the look and therefore it was perfectly proper for the district court to grant this honorable court they spent ninety five percent not ninety nine percent of their time discussing what happened with respect to the district lodge and the walk yet they have one paragraph on page twenty one referencing the international what the international did and it only references what her conversation with jim smith she doesn't mention your conversation with brian brian brian and she doesn't mention that she had a favorable view of both of those men and  arguments raised by the international asked to wa and great and also raised by the just report as to why the international was not liable to her on the duty of fair representation and i would respectfully suggest that because there is no evidence that the international is liable and due to a fair representation claim either independently or out theory of common law agency material just the other your honour's have to have questions that's that's my presentation i three seniority rights and although it's not listed that they took that test it says there is information that they took the test failed and were unsuccessful in bulk so there are folks that do try to do that were  getting to it and i'd like to embrace this was an important part of the case one of the reasons that taking the test is the red herring that's because it's part of the collective bargaining agreement being used by the the parties here the unions to say well she had to take the test certification test so the company acknowledges that the most senior people that were working in the cable shop left the cable shop because they all failed the test and became  easy to work pool so that when this clown he's trying to come back to being eighty two the only thing available to her is the cable shop because the sr proof people left the cable shop that clearly indicates how she was impacted by the test the test moved out the sr e g tubes on of the cable shop put them in the regular eighty two dollars jobs that was cloud we had seniority to hold there were no longer available to good it concerns me about your argument is i can't get away from the fact that the settlement included only those who read t two in september two thousand and twelve that your are that's incorrect and that's what the district court was incorrect about also the settlement included anybody impacted by the unilateral imposition of the cable test that included the choose that included that included equipment cleaners and in this case it the trader became a settlement the parties intrade into a settlement and took that beyond and the standard was based on the union and who qualified was anybody impacted by the test not  crafts they lost their jobs their part of the settlement agreement were saying the same thing this company had seniority is it true the settlement the requirement to take this cable task moved all the senior  off of the cable shop and took away her ability to work in the regular two jobs she was impacted just like the person that the senior people can down into jobs away from who are he teaches there is no difference also called the plant manager jan hopkins and asked for work if you put your period of time and she was told that work was given was being given out and get it and there was no reason for that so not only did she fill out the forms which according to the affidavits was sufficient to get people brought back to work we had four people drop that different jobs shift from job classifications then they held at the time just because they were out there and were called back she actually called the company talked to the plant manager and asked for work and she said i'm i'm willing to do anything i sure and the final point i'd like to bring up is that one of the issues that developed in this case is bad faith and the union actually made an issue during the pendency of this group indicate that the company one of the reasons they were and he said that never happened so again that goes to the entire issue of the bad faith in the actions of the union based on both the manner in which the the grievance was handled and dropped your permission that was given that was incorrect of ms mists cloudy and her failure to be included in the settlement agreement based on the domino effect that was the standard raised by the union we believe that there is sufficient evidence