pennsylvania and as you know from the briefs he had a job where he may be required to travel hundreds of miles to remote work locations and work generally eight consecutive days me however however i do think that if this court your visit your orders are the ones i think who can view whether a question should be certified to the pennsylvania supreme court in cont does that mean play to it when we look at the federal regulations addressing travel away from the home community there is no such regulation under pennsylvania law but that's almost really hours that nine to five yes so if my doing the working hours are nine to five on monday and i see i drive on sunday somewhere between nine and five is your position that i have your client and duties and remember it's part of his duties plural part of his duties is to go to the roof location that's true of every employee who doesn't work at home they have to travel  their residence to the destination that your client has to drive a longer distance think you're asking us to say makes it hard at his duty and if that's your position where we draw the line you draw the line you're on a guy who going to the federal the benefit of twenty three i disagree that we want the benefit of the f l i say we want the benefit of the pm to the way ever regulations were the n f l s a regulations provide more detail which is exactly what's happening here we're taking this was one sentence in a period of the regulation that's meant to congress all travel time which is that arise travel time at the beginning of a big travel time during the big travel time at the end of the day travel time away from the home community as we have here in one little sentence thirty five thousand dollars to be at the compulsory arbitration program i guess and stake were a question is how do you get to thirty five thousand dollars in this case to get out of that on where you had  frankly when you sleep with when you plead for class action and you fill out those forms it's not always clear whether when you stick with the amount of controversy is whether it should be from the individual class representative we were for the the class and when we filled out the form frankly we and we said it was worth over thirty five thousand men as a class action it's worth over thirty five thousand mr espinosa as individual wrong i don't know i mean obviously if the court concludes and we know that subject matter jurisdiction has to be complete decided that any stage in the proceeding and i know that this panel has an obligation to to address is in fact to be settled in f l us a case along these lines for for i think seven or eight workers and i'm i want to say that maybe each person got twenty five to three thousand dollars you know  is exactly correct the basis upon which we removed the case was based primarily on attorney's fees and reliance on their representation and their act the expectation is the sort of occasion was for the correct even if he even if his client were to prevail and it doesn't get certified as a class the fees would still be if it's that thirty dollars an hour it's four thousand dollars we will release a piece at least seventy one thousand dollars we cases are in fact i would suspect seventy thousand dollars would be conservative to take this case should be getting to that ok thank you for the answer that question i'm sorry and they can take you give you a question as you're walking to the podium that's ok i expected it after i heard the question direct arise the history here was the result of riginal complaint filed we were moved to federal court we need only recognize the deficiency and the very issues there that are before us of the concept of work that travel is the complaint was amended the district court agreed on that we would then file a motion to dismiss that briefing has occurred from the beginning to the end the district court rendered a decision the word district court also gave an opportunity to for leave to  we've now fully briefed the school this case were here in the third circuit and only today that counsel raised the possibility of certification only in response to the question from the panel number one number two there ar material differences in the regulation the department the pennsylvania labor and industry the department has made it clear that this is a different world it is used different words an interpretive bulletin which we have cited in our brief it is talk specifically about how only if trial involves certain things clocking in and loading up etc and i'm quoting the regulation both and is travel compensable that otherwise travel regulation is materially different it is not a matter of filling in gaps it is now a matter of silence as there has been the case for example in sleeping time when the courts of look to the n f l or say to fill in the gap when there's nothing  and the irony here is that you know if you if you really cut through it the plaintiff's argument appears to be that ironically scales of justice literally way wherever the regulations are longer and heavier you look to the us and because pennsylvania is skinny little regulations are not as expensive as the f l say we have to defer to the department of labor really irony is that the very same time that is any little regulation of exemptions for administrative professional executive and outside sales virtually identical to what the department of labor had done at the federal level they know how to do it if they want to so in your from your point of view i f this individual were performing a task while traveling hypothetically like the sears maintenance guy who was get checking in with headquarters when it went down next door if he even god say there was a briefing that need to take place so that chip transitioning in would know what they need to perform in iraq the say if he were say on a speaker phone while driving and they were briefing him on the next task to perform that might be working that might be working but in this case based upon the allegations and all that's all we have the only thing we know is he to travel long distances that the employer set the just the place to which he had a report that if he didn't travel that distance he'd be terminated is that meet any of the allegations about what the context of the work while travelling i know you are if the allegations that sad he gets reimbursed for his mileage was the allegation said he's covered by workers compensation when he's traveling or if the allegations said what i just plaintiff chose not to cure the the plaintiff has chosen to visit very moment to stand on their own point what if the contract would if the agreement if there were any going between the employer and the employee had some language about what one's duty rise do the duty they get their travel reimbursed and they don't have to read grease on the way they can read a newspaper if they want but you're right you're talking about expenses no money best travel i mean and well you about it the travel expenses right travel expenses are paid our wages do correct but as it is these employees this is just a commute he would have to basically disregard the regulation and ignore the language the regulators decided tia's when they could've used the very language under the f s a and the the f all say doesn't call this walk this call the after hours work it talks about corresponding hours considered to be staying at home there they are considered to be moving to the employer's truly good location away from their home if they choose to to travel to that location as opposed to go own no one tells them that they have to since are miles away they can't go home every night but they're going to other people but that's not the case it's this is not a matter where there's a contract or a policy that automatic something automatically happens it's based on the individual circumstances but goes back to the n f l is a regulation it doesn't call this working time it is corresponding hours on non work days so  know the analysts say you can't that regulation can't be jammed into the pennsylvania paradigm because it requires work it is admitted really not work and in fact as the dissenting judge whether they are work or not do you think it should matter in this case the complaint alleges that the way their work schedule was in work eight days the ten and a half hour shift which was that seven thirty  found it was very confusing sometimes use daylight hours sometimes talk about non scheduled days it the complaint is all over the map and ok thank you i'm going back to the definition working hours means because it means something else i believe it does mean that the pennsylvania regulation but as as the court noted the pennsylvania regulation adds the work component to it so it has to be perform eight work task during the hours read this search situation seven to five thirty on whichever day you do it but you've got to be a front to work task doing that that was hours correct ok has nothing else i have nothing for all right thank you willing to look to those federal regulations in the dressing the issue of whether sweeping time could constitute work under the pennsylvania wreck this happens all the time and if it doesn't happen i want to emphasize this to the  concept but secondly the it's just the reality you're on there i knew this theory the pennsylvania department of labor industry could go and fix all these things by implementing detailed regulations but