that in a contract in that situation the union has standing to represent the retirees in any dispute concerning those benefits council the collective bargaining agreements that were were look that at ability was terminated anyway so it's terminated so there are no retiree health benefits under this collective bargaining agreement now you're out there what is that what is there arbitrate since the benefits don't exist preserve it and part to preserve eligibility of those retired prior to that caught up i'm saying if there's another collective bargaining agreement that the retirees have some rights under to under it may be subject to arbitration but it's a different case it's not the case that we have before us no i don't believe that that's right your honor for this reason wanted that but that the union's theory of this grievance is that in this pr two thousand and twenty which doesn't provide for retiree health benefits so even though it's hypothetical that there may be some rights under previous collective bargaining agreements i mean i can't review it it's not a dish of those employees already in the existing retiree coverage or money is that correct that way that that their benefits they were receiving they continue to receive for the term of this agreement that was part of the agreement here and your honor you may or may not agree with that but but that is the union's position in its grievance and i was present that argument an arbitrator which is that the company couldn't change the pricing structure premium structure so then this could this article night change includes a number of references to health care does it not that's right yes and and a and changes to the premiums they are so effectively the argument goes if i'm understanding it that the retiree's you might be able to change the premium for the active employees but you cannot change the premium for the retired employees that remain in that very plan that was negotiated is that correct that that is the union argument and it's and it's understood that the company would in response argue that arbitration exactly what you're arguing judge crippen that that this doesn't make a promise for those type of benefits or that doesn't make a promise to maintain the benefits are unchanged but that's that argument goes to the nerves and the union is trying to snip that argument to an arbitrator i don't think that's a question of stand can you can you explain the difference between constitutional standing and standing is the word is used in the context of a collective bargaining agreements arbitration procedures  own injury and that not a rd person the employer apparently argues that the retirees are not no longer union members they're not part of the union and therefore you're asserting trying to  of rd parties your complaint alleges that you have received consent by some of the retirees but doesn't even provide a majority or whatever how do you what is your basis for  that interest and then when it gets to the can the question of consent consent is a requirement for arbitration those individual retirees who want to add the union arbitrate the not at the stage well before arbitration but at arbitration itself and it also said that the sufficiency of the adequacy of the consent in the form of the case that is a question for the arbitrator to decide and rejected the here are the clear terms of the collective bargaining agreement and you say it has you saying it's it's subject to multiple interpretations and they say it's only subject to one mon the this or court largely point that we're at the use of the word employee in the arbitration provisions and that here that's what you have you have a difference or a grievance or dispute in how that is in ministers and that that difference can exist between the company and those employees it doesn't say the language doesn't say that the employees only bring a grievance related to his or her  cases do you think that supports you know unfortunately that these cases are back to dependent on the language of each agreement and there isn't an agreement that fits squarely with the language but i do think that group is having people actually go read to say you read the boards to see if the subject fits within the words of the agreement and there is have this is not a case in which the employees actually have an interest in the further administration this benefit there are cases like that where an employee says you're screwing up a benefit for this retirees and i want to retire someday and i want to get that benefit and i don't want to be ruined or miss administer this is that the case because some paragraph page article nineteen section one says this is better there's terminate so none of the employees signed this reasons it's not going to get that benefit it's over and so this case i'm like many of the other cases union sites is not going to provide that benefit and therefore there is no community of unions arguments centered basically on what was possible and they're right the problem they have missed and got the wrong collective bargaining agreement to make those arguments yes unions can have to represent the interests of retirees but only if those interests are reflected in rights in a contract that was negotiated union sites all these cases we will act through and pamela michigan bell case and all of those cases in the discussion which  says hey this is something you can do they can do it because the union negotiated that benefit that benefit is not in this contract are its ability there in the same bug yes there are two items there are contracts under and those issues are working conditions just charges your getting rights lay off and we employ cancel argues that that is non exclusive jumping to the merits of the issue you're opposing counsel has has argued that the this is the earliest heart of the decision making in this case actually the only part that is granted to a court to determine it is whether this is it as a case that is susceptible to use in the are through the arbitration provisions and i'm not confectionary worker's case from two thousand and ten with this a no you argue that this is a more limited arbitration proceeding but our case the a two tier situations very much like arbitration will be janata only if an expressed provision excludes a particular agreements from forum and in order to arbitrate the particular agreement should not that has gone and will continue to go to its employees has the right to bring this through the grievance procedure yes but the cases also said that the court has the task of determining our debility yes it will understand why you get to categorize that as the only merits issue in the us because the issue that is that we are looking at is whether those employed may br client related to a negotiated then a fit the negotiated best is the medical care plan right but there is there and so they are bringing something on behalf expansiveness and protection of arbitration provisions and not just thank you know not to ignore the steelworkers trilogy the whole point of which was to say that what is going on in labor relations is industrial self governed much we don't want it to go to the courts it needs to go through the procedures established maava knowledgeable cortis so i am i'm struggling with your argument that by korean confectionery doesn't work i'm so looking at the local eighteen of the operating engine ayers talking about the paragraphs in the steps of the procedures in which we hailed to the extent that there is any conflict between the st sentence and the paragraphs and the steps of the procedure the star sentence evidence is a more explicit agreement regarding the broad scope of the arbitration provision than any implicit agreement that might be derived from the steps of the procedure itself and in diskettes it so already been through the current and retiree employees are in and served by a health care plan that was negotiated in this contract and in past contracts as well those retirees do not go away they are and the body of the provision of health care service is that these current employees are also now explain to me wh and then you read through the st three steps of the grievance procedure while under the standard that we impose here is that not a sufficient connection to say the arbitrator gets to make that decision cases which have different arbitration clauses that are brought there are this is not a broad arbitration clause and they have different contracts that refer to a negotiated benefit here the union is arguing that the benefit submit in response to the unions it's in there because of silence argument that you would not have a benefit conferred to people who were not at the table for negotiation contracts because they were retired they were not employees that were out of it but if you had a benefit from people like that contract would say so it would not provide that benefit i silence that's normal contract law and that's what it worked out for apply and if the courts have no role regardless i think that that would be an improper standard it would require that the court delve into the merits of the grievance not to determine whether or not simply the union has standing here that's where we're talking about this  a limited the benefit altogether then this would absolutely be a question of them that the standing question would resolve the merits question and that can't be the standard spiel were controlled we would not allow it and that's not the union is not required to prove language in that this was the say it is a just cause discipline grievance i haven't seen a case in which the courts have required that the that the union prove that just cause of the benefits that are bargained even if it's for past retirees and also that that these that just because they don't have the benefit now doesn't mean that someday they can change that agreement they can next