we're going do with this guy is east officer and and that represents the police officer or the corrections people arm whatever they are joint day they should have some point to consider that this may affect the corrections unit they did i re present yes i think that's what i explained in my brief i don't think that is necessarily an economic way to perceive this and she was just resolve it's true who it was challenging his own collective bargaining agreement decision he was an employee under the fire collective bargaining agreement and organizations specifically concerning him under his agreement which he disliked because he was reinstated as a probationary i'm sure plenty of disputes about time with this of actually reached that point but i think the appropriate action for the corrections you know was to file a grievance attempt to resolve this through to release our treasure procedure they bargained for and i require to have it in their collective bargaining agreement before should the general simply make it clear if a user is very easy to make and i think it's clear from the fact that are two separate agreements that these are two separate partners if it was appropriate for the policeman's benevolent to represent all of these units we could just put them under one giant collective bargaining agreement that would save us time and bargain for seven or eight different units that we have to come apart in every specific contract  and the sheriff came by and those parties specifically in an arbitration award in regards to that agreement it cannot alter the change of manner and make any difference or any interpretation of the corrections agreements which specifically time this this agreement would not have happened we were under the impression based on his representation and this is something he had already to do we did that it is clear now that he must not have already which is why it is our position that he w time i know under the statute to file a motion to vacate they only have ninety days they could have done this that and that is testing days i will say that i do not know if they are going to file something and say that somebody acted in bad fa that they claim to actually do that and i understand counsel saying that it would not be economic for for them to do that wall and fortunately we're in a tough situation where how to fix what happened this should have been what they have done and they did and they decided to use  think you're going to just says i think i want to make one distinction to clarify what mr o'neill representation bolland who was bound by that i think the party's going to be here decided they were going to settle corrections unit on this matter and we will not be worried about whatever happens with this agreement that it would have been on the corrections unit and they would have had a breach of fair duty claim against mr o'neal however that said they  after yes i'm trying to distinguish the effect of the arbitration work force versus something mr o'neal probably could have done that would have resulted in a decision in favor of the n f l lease there was a motion for clarification yes the same thing and i don't know if mr of the representative you consulted with corrections i don't know if he didn't represent based on the reading of the transcript it was a last second thing that came up and he off the cuff said i believe this is just the remember of issues to resolve like