force in effect through april thirtieth two thousand and six i'm west written notice of intent to seek change remember positions of this agreement shall be given in either case by the parties desiring such change or amendment at least ninety days prior to the expiration not necessarily if you look at the affidavit from david weaver who is negotiate he testifies as to what that language meant from prior agreements and this agreement and in fact judge of the lower court interpretations of that section the tradition in the construction industry for an a d f agreement prior to that was that you could terminate at any time under ninety eight gree good example dekel left as in this agreement up to the ferdie's to decide how the agreement was going to be terminated and the means in mechanism the language change or amen his traditional language in the construction industry i think is as mr we protest of give his affidavit and in fact said and then he also gave his affidavit that quote no union representative either during negotiations or during administration of the collective bargaining agreements prior to two thousand and six ever challenged disputed that interpretation and that's the reason that the union changed it after two thousand and six and the ambiguity in the language of the two thousand and one two thousand and six but construction companies who are now new and often in doing the project agreements with a labor organization to abide by the terms of the collective bargaining in particular the good the wages and fringe benefits for a particular project also in some projects particularly in new york they were called project labor agreements project labor agreements require that the contractor abide by the collective bargaining agreement for that particular project the tappan zee bridge is one exam that you can interpret it that you can explain terminate during the but they can't but there's nothing to prohibit i think an adecco and or decisions after that there's nothing to prohibit the parties from internally agree how the mechanism is going to work for terminate and you have some of  those and i know teamster agreements parties can let the us party know that they're going to either amend or change or terminate the agreement so i agree with you that that will only dealt with and i think that's the law report and mistake that will a decision as a firm only dealt with the fact that it's changing the prior rules the parties to eighty eight f agreement cannot unilaterally change it without some provision the clock to bring that's always been the the parties could not unilaterally terminate the ninety eight but they could terminate the agreement if there was a provision in the collective bargaining agree construction and as a nonunion contract fringe benefit form or the men would that have been credited with the name and then said we are bound by that that trust document and the collective bargaining for that purpose but that's done in every project labor agreement or project agreement there not a way to intention not to be yes and it was my impression that you it was my impression that you said we don't want to join this to come on board disagreement because we don't want we were not sure that we duration that is correct and especially in that seems to be evidence that evidences intention not to be but yes and i agree with that and it particular in this case where we kindly was not a member of the trade association telling them we did not want to be bound by this agreement we were not a member of the association and but we were going to pay the fringe benefits and the trial and the wages nor to do these prevailing major projects can you point to the place the union made as we didn't pay the industry advancement for we did not pay the insurance we didn't comply with all the terms of it but the bargain he never said to be didn't know i believe he said he said it's a pointed to doesn't say anything regarding determination of the agreement and that is the only provision in the agreement that is pointed to by conway as permitting it to unilaterally terminate the agreement at any time that's correct if you look at just the the clause that is cited by the parties fifteen to you it's it may be unclear as to what that that provision means but it if it appears in reaches the members of the four but who are negotiating collective bargaining agreements because it doesn't come up the purpose of a collective bargaining unit is to stabilize conditions in a particular industry such as the construction industry for which a death was an ac work on the one job agreements agree with the union that they will abide to a nother by the terms of a separate collective bargaining agreement for the purpose of being able to conduct work on a union job the prevailing wage job a job  subject to a project labor agreement now those are separate eight f agreements those they're typically a one page agreement or call short form agreements and in some cases and they say we will agree to abide by the terms of this other collective bargaining agreement and for as  fixed period of time until the end of the project nothing in that seems to violate my lights the deck with decision that is an agreement as to the expiration that provision which is at the end of the project what deco is concerned with is the parties who have agreed and we're talking in this case about the union and a an employer's association to c t e which negotiating a negotiated a collective bargaining agreement that was pretty much industrywide covered several member employees employers of the on one agreement between the employer and the and the union now the deckle a decision of the effect of the death of a decision is to say that if the employers and the union have entered into an agreement whereby the there is a fixed schedule for prevailing wage rates fixed term of the agreement that this will go on for five years for six years and that period should should be a stable period until the next yourself referred to unless the parties express their intent to seek to change the agreement it is an expression of their intent not not to impose any obligations on any other party to be green is there anyone who or  before the expiration date is there any way for the family to terminate you yes the agreement also provides it within section fifteen two lines down from the language that we're talking about there is that a separate provision that conway did not intend to be downed by the c b i occur in the middle of the of this two thousand and one to two thousand and six period it occurs in april two thousand and three or between january and april two thousand and three and that is when con john conway the principal of conway and had conversations two thousand and three conduct in the middle of the of the term that he doesn't want to be down anymore and that is that goes to the language of the of the of section fifteen and whether that can be permissibly read as permitting him a unilateral right to re regional council carpenters and for state from one nine hundred ninety eight through two thousand and three during those meetings agreed to pay union scale and benefits as long as my customers could afford them consistently refused to sign any written agreement particularly  thousand and two thousand and one or refused because the book would remain would have run from a one two thousand and one through april thirtieth with the borgnine remit that is the source of its exclusive representational work so bending emphasized that they derive the already from eight f and ninety eight from the collective arguing agreement beyond the operative term of the and means of terminating the agreement unilateral as a specific meeting pre dekel unilateral was and he to for green that prior to dekel that either side could just tell the other side i don't want to be bound by the collective bargain and walk away from if the circuit adopts declan you still can make the terminations or change remember where under the collective bargaining agreement there's nothing in dec or any cases afterwards that determined that the parties cannot do that and if you look at labonte dry well i think that souter was on the panel they state exactly that that even under dec will the parties can agree ho reason for him that he rejected his it didn't matter because in your deck the parties couldn't agree to a legal term i agree with that if it's a legal term such as the old agreements with the railway industry where minorities are limited under the collective bargaining to certain jobs i agree one hundred percent if it's illegal the parties can agree to it but here i think the combination was mr weaver's affidavit yes but then again becomes a question of fact the correct ambiguity in s