right rd place for this morning is miller against southwest airlines company m question that the district court on this record is going to need to answer not implicated interpretation of either the management rights provision or bad the collective bargaining rights provision in the collective bargaining agreement  your opponent southwest argues that in fact a couple of things bring it under the scope of the collective bargaining agreement number one it deals with a sort of timekeeping system and that's a the most central parts of any collective bargaining agreement so why did those not you know pull it back into the collective bargaining agreement with respect to the st part of your question the timekeeping systems implementation and particular particular they have to comply with the written notice and written release and consent requirements of the biometrics penalty but the statute says the person or his agent and of course the union about this referring to the legally authorized representative means something more like you know a guardian that you might appoint for a disabled adult or a parent's visa be a child or something of the sort that it does machine for clocking in to the union consent also to a regime under which each individual member did not receive notice about the collection of his or her biometric it is to you since it seemed to me that if people were saying i should have been paid more that sounded like maybe you couldn't use it unless there was some readjustment of wages i know there's an issue about it amended under the biometric act there's violation even if it's not so much the collection of the collection with our the notification i take it the notification might allow somebody to resign his job at southwest airlines if he doesn't want him or for a company that collects biometric information to go find a different job that's absolutely right you're on a minute in addition it actually touches a bit on the article three injury issues the information the notice explains the nature of the privacy information it's not clear when we give a fingerprint for example how long it's going to be collected who has access to it where it stored and what in fact we're giving up when we do about three b three talks about receiving a written release executed by the subject of the bottom the tricky part that sounds like the employer asks to get a release directly from the employee from an agent i wonder if they use preempted in a straightforward way we need to consider that because that sounds like saying the worker and the employer have to negotiate directly about that particular leads me to wonder whether the state has attempted to require direct bargaining on a particular topic well i don't i don't think there's any need to bargain on the right to receive written notice of consent and employee individual thing right executes a release now collecting biometric information these are unquestionably a permanent condition of employment right s we'll never see it again i think we're going to see plenty of this i'd hate to tell you but we do have a question i want to get back to recruit women every question which is whether the railway labor preemption but in the interest of keeping the trains running so to speak and the airlines congress was interested in in providing a mechanism for the resolution of disputes that would be that would move forward i think i go back to the question which is whether or not a particular claim it issue and on the record what questions will need to be answered to resolve that claim actually  maybe that leaves your clients the right of exit if they don't if they are offended by having their fingerprints collected or recklessly by the southwest emailing them all around the country to various age should happen to pass and biometric information protection act we're going to hold you union members subject to a bargain that your union never negotiated because it didn't have a very good crystal ball  there and we are not going to tell you anything about what we're collecting how we're protecting it we're sending it to you there's a lot of speculation there and other aspects of the law t  report from their primary care physician so that we can show the world that southwest employees are the healthiest people  around and three years ago the union agreed to the collective bargaining agreement hours wait time arbitration do you think that people have allowed the union to agree to that statute on their behalf at least maybe something in the collective bargaining agreement that imposes on the union the duty then to go notify its member of the biometric information privacy create a personal strong interest in not having that data out there for potential hackers to see anything maybe they would rather not work for southwest if that's the way southwest wants to run its workplace are there are people on a lot of choices like that they have a few choices left and they may not really want their fingerprints floating all over the internet the twenty ping isn't working condition and the only that from the union even happening your way three years later when there is such a statute and there are these three requirements this is why the contract interpretation is required to resolve this particular dispute no  including directly above that provision the right to implement reasonable work rules so long as advance notice was given to the union with southwest to sync to that that needs to be done here is that you have to look at the terms of the contract maybe that's what they gave away it allows compliance to the union but you've conceded that southwest didn't give the union written retention policies and you know dated destruction poli