although he identified those two sources by which he was bound he nonetheless committed a manifest this regard of the law because authorizes crowley summary dismissal of an employee that falsifies documents and or offers false information during work hours with the purpose of the threading the company crawley or its customers the company by not daily reporting the car situation would be subjected to spontaneous inspection and fines why isn't if the evidence support that supports that that could be used as intending to defraud why isn't that enough that the evidence is there we don't think that that evidence points to an word dishonest in that sentence and say that i didn't say defrauding the company but since on page nine it specifically quotes from that standard and since lying to the supervisor here is an evidentiary matter provides that you show defrauding in order to have the ground for summarily terminating and then right after that says when he lied to the supervisor that satisfied the c v s well so that's hardly the kind of thing that seems like a manifest disregard no judge that reasonably read the opinion to have gotten it right to have any other questions i think that would cover my addressing one of the questions posed to brother counsel brother counsel bases his argument in that the judge that the arbitrator not find that there was an intent to the fraud which is the language in the collective bargaining agreement but i would like to make reference to this issue of this honorable court exact same words as the collective bargaining agreement and the arbitration award clearly establishes that this honesty in the shop of crowley which was negotiated with the teamsters union has been used to terminate employees under the section of the collective bargain agreement of offering false information with the intent to defraud this is a case of a base honest employee he provided false information to his supervisor to deceive him into believing that his work was up to date when it was and he had hidden ninety six important documents in the drawer of his desk under papers it constituted three days of work which he had not entered into cro system because of this the supervisor asked him if his work was up to date and he said that it was since in a previous occasion tor hidden documents in his test the supervisor the side that he wanted to double check the information so he double checked and in fact he found that the artist at the c p m he had lived and been all the information of embarkment and received he has to enter that into the crowley system because he has to maintain an exact inventory of what is in the crowley yard apostles if it's not up to date the inventory these agencies could find crowley so because he had been dishonest he had  supervisor but hiding the documents the company decided to terminate him based on the collective bargaining agreement which allowed the company to terminate the employment of an employee who in the course of hi employment would provide false information to commit fraud against the company but case went to arbitration and the arbitrator permitted the company to present their evidence also torres testified he crossed examined crowley's witnesses he presented a witness and his whole theory was that there was a conspiracy against him that he did not hide those documents the arbitrator listened to his testimony and they did not give credence to his testimony that there was a conspiracy told us could not even point out to one person who wanted to do harm to him as a matter of fact he testified that both his supervisor and h r manager were very serious persons and very meticulous with their job and he did not think they had anything to harm him was there any evidence of financial loss to the company not in this case your honor because since the company was able to patch the situation in time the both government agencies not intervening was there any evidence of financial loss that could have occurred there was testimony that these agencies could find but company if the inventory was not up to date was there was there any evidence of financial gain to the employee no your honor there was no financial gain to the employer so it was an argument or evidence presented in terms of his continuing to be to receive a salary or wages without doing the work was there any evidence of that sort well your honor he received the wages for his whole day of work but he did not do his work he did not enter the information into was that were those two facts entered into evidence the fact that he did not complete his drop that the yes your honor and the fact that he received wages or salary severance yet there was no question of whether he was paid or not his salary is that your honor questioning an arbitration award he is questioning the determinations of fact in law of the arbitrator and he mentions the case that the arbitrator's cited which is  that offering false information in the employment application is a serious offense and the court that case the arbitration award that had the term and that the determination was without just cause so the are but the court the supreme court to porto rico in analyzing law eighty and the facts of that case determine that the terminations was with cause implicated the so this case an appeal really dross the arbitrator's decision thrust the essence from the collective bargaining agreement between the crowd and the union the arbitrator the not impart his own brand of industrial justice he constructed the contract within the scope of his authority the district court properly confirmed the arbitration award therefore it is very respectfully from in our in our st term we had said that we were not contesting the conduct although it had been contested during the arbitration hearing but there was no evidence presented by the company during the hearing that mr dorris was not working during those hours that he  but no there was no evidence presented as to the fact that he was not working or he was doing something else that he was that he would left his his desk or wherever he worked to do something all reason or the terminations for the st offense can be upheld of course the supreme court has decided that but supreme court has a very clear that it does for with the intent of the fraud in the company with the purpose of the for the company offering false information we're not contesting that that that his conduct was not serious but we're contesting is that in order to be able to presented today for their arguments thank you very much you know that concludes arguments for today the session of the honorable united states court of appeals has now recessed until the next session of the court god save the united states of america and this honorable court counsel you may disconnect from the hearing