your more morning your honor may i please the court and the other honorable members of this court i will reserve a few minutes of my time for a bottle though it is my goal not to use all of my time circumstances that occur in this area of law ranging from the utterly monday and human to the hybrid legal and structural ones the monday a new human one is  the client to this case the appellant pioneer roofing is signatory with this sheet metal union and the case arose because on work and as a result the city then had my clients then subcontracted the work to another entity that is signatory with the union whose members had overcome those human issues the second characteristic of the case is that when the matter was brought to arbitration the only contractor entity name was the sheet battle saying that tory i have done many many arbitrations and it's quite common for the that's right to the point to where i am now which is to say the roofing singer tori was not name and did not participate in the arbitration it would have been common in all of the cases i've ever seen that the other company the refer union company would have been named and then would have either objected to its presence in the grievance or sought a court order or something not shown up which will lead you but your client had a full opportunity to defend itself and the raise all the issues position in that regard was there anything that would have prevented your client from making an objection even though p c i was not named in the grievance it's not an i be doing now though i said i'm grateful for the chance to discuss the issues around invited here this leads to the second point because the ruffing company was not named and the sheet metal ford made a decision it made a decision with respect to the sheet metal contract only and so the arbor to all the station is outside seems to reach to touch the refers contract and that being the essence of a jurisdictional question but the cot when the party is in front of the grievance panel the other labor contract is in front of isn't in front of the panel now the other corollary point that is not in front of the panel not subject to be wave and actually not evade yet litigated is part of the part number of decisional trees that come out of steel workers because the used to be a position that where there is a damages case or an unfair labor practice case that had to be presented to the grievance panel to the arbitrator that's no longer a law so in this case we're in the peculiar position that if there were an award this court would affirm at the end of the day there's a damages a war that could be addressed if a district court  in a federal district court damages action that big said bear in mind that my clients and opposing counsels clients are going to remain married to one another so we're alternately gonna resolve this case but that's not precisely part of your mission i'm not asking you to be marriage counselors but the final point that's relevant here is the ultimate award on of the panel is one i've never seen before in effect has a balloon payment that says it doesn't address well there's these hours of audio work that that what you were concerned about well let me explain it as best i can now if you're permit me first off my use of the word balloon payment is rhetoric and arguments  why i tried to line out these lemmas that the roofing signatory company was not named it isn't swanson structurally in the positions object or go to court over it decision was made based on the contract it had in front of it and then and then that's your hon where i get to the nature of the remedy which is profoundly unusual but you can't take testimony from me that it's really unusual in the main frankly how your honor that would get addressed in that damages case or an unfair labor practice if that ever happened if this didn't all otherwise resolve but this is the nature of this business i think the labor law opens the door to some of the most interesting peculiar things you know in our practice and let me ask one last question from my so you have any objection to the war attorney fees apart from your challenge of down the line order no i know i was going to reserve that for my last comment the attorney's fees hinge upon the enforcement of the arbitration award opposing counsel i've litigator had for many errors they're fantastic lawyers there's no active issue i'm not the attorneys feel war derives entirely from whether or not the grievance award is sustained and if there are issues there or not in front of you in that way they would only be present in terms of pressing ten forces being part of the good morning may it please the court i think it's still morning eileen goldsmith for sheet metal workers local one hundred four there's nothing anomalous about the grievance the local joins us mint board award or the remedy this is a run of the mill case to confirm an arbitration award under section three zero one the l g b is the joint labor management arbitration panel that p r o agreed to in the collective bargaining agreement with local one o four and the l g b had the task of deciding whether p r over i laid that contract by signing work within the scope of the collective bargaining agreement to workers who are not represented by local one zero four the l g b heard the evidence from finding or its contract interpretation here is a word clearly draws its essence from contract language that provides that covered work under the contract with specifically includes metal roofing shall be done by workers who are employed pursuant to the contract hypothetically where they can't do the work that's a fact issue that goes as we negotiate here and the l g b have the power to find the facts even if even if the court might have come out a different way there's a long line of cases going back to the steelworkers trilogy and right up to dry wall dynamics from this court a couple of years ago that emphasize that no matter whether the court thinks that no matter what the court thinks of the quality of the fact finding it it needs to be  to i wanted to respond to the issue about waiver mr free to argue that p r zero could not have argued the jurisdiction of the companies are controlled by the same people currently philip manuel pioneer roofing the plaintiff here is a partnership planner contracting it's a corporation  of there's another company and they're not here everyone was present who could have raised that issue it's undisputed that it that it was not raised and it's undisputed that pioneer had the ability at that local joint adjustment board hearing to raise any issue that it wanted to and having appeared at the l g a be argued the grievance on the merits and not said anything about the panel's jurisdiction under george i wanted to respond to a couple of points mr freed raised first whether this is at all unusual to see a grievance of this kind and we've cited number of ninth circuit cases that show that it isn't barry construction concerns a very similar kind of dispute where the laborers filed a subcontract and grievance against their contractor when their contractor subcontracted some work to a company that was signatory with the pipe fitters there's no discussion of the pipe fitters and their subcontractor having been involved in that proceeding at all van waters and rogers again there are two different unions but the sub the grievance doesn't involve the second union  kinny or conditioning there are a union company and a nonunion company controlled by the same people only the union company is involved and involved in that group that's the point is that these grievances to enforce one unions contract language by way of damages as opposed to specific performance are perfectly legitimate don't raise any legal problems and i would say that kenny and  van water so the best examples of that nothing about that kind of damages grievance interferes with the contractual relationship between the other company and the other union the last thing i wanted to raise was the remedy as at the core points out the remedy is sort of casually mentioned in pinter's opening brief and then not mention further but there's very broad language in this collective bargaining agreement regarding the l j b f authority to determine the remedy and under that language they can they can issue a remedy that they consider quote necessary and proper and so what you have here is when you look at it they're really doing pioneer a big favor actually of four went into the screens asking for a million dollars the l j b reduce that to six hundred thousand and then suspended the six hundred thousand they looked back at the record and saw that there was this very similar grievance and award from three years ago with a suspended fine which was still within the time to bring it back to life and that suspended fine was only sixty four thousand dollars now the first time around back in two thousand and twelve the could have looked at the situation and said we have to clarified this contract or what their obligations are and we will do that by imposing a fine not a huge amount w suspend it pending good behavior now they know that this this behavior violates the contract they probably won't do it again three years later when they see that the company has done it again they figure that maybe a stronger remedy is propre it and so at that point they say ok we're going to bring back the suspended fine because it's the identical violation and we have the two thousand and twelve award in the record with its with its terms and we see it that a bigger deterrent is now necessary also so we're going to impose a fine it's not what the union asked for not even close but we're also going to suspend that but the bigger the bigger deterrent is now appropriate but all of this is entirely permitted by the language of the collective bargaining agreement which is really all that matters thank you counsel and thank you to the court let me turn tie this together i modestly familiar with george's day and the other cases i might have played a part in late again in them and one of the key parts of george day's understanding of wine a party inadvertently makes a general appearance so that for example if you show if you're named in a grievance and you show up the net result of that decision was you showed up and the court has jurisdiction over you and it's very very difficult to do a special appearance in front of a grievance panel now in this case the issue was not broached because the ruffing signatory company was not named so that sequence of events never could have occurred the fact that the she had mela company truthfully related the history of the contract and the sub contracting and truthfully told about the work process and truthfully told by the way grampa was a she mall worker so in any event truthfully told about the height issues and the ability to perform the work that doesn't resonate with any concept of waiver that it's more consistent with simply telling the truth but what contract if not only is this is a jurisdictional case in some ways like the one you just heard if relevant party is not present and if the union surely running the grievance would have had some intrust as a structural matter in having that party and forcing that party to speak for itself with separate counsel if they had an interest in balancing the language of the sheep bell or hers contract with the first contract so that someone could decide do you have jurisdiction over this they would have pursued the party  the contract wasn't present and i will let counsel's description of what i am characterizing as a balloon payment stand for itself we are not in staying after the analysts call matrix so this really is as if it was a jurisdictional case more than any kind of conventional arbitration case and my closing thought then comes back to steel workers because if the steel workers the fourth prong of those cases had remained law it would have been required to articulate the