but taking it for as a given at this point that you could separate that out and and we were for sake of argument say we accept that there was this severance possibility overall project then keep them going for another twenty years because it's physically impossible to continue the case perpetually and that's in collective bargaining agreements with the case law is in collect the money remains the only ones that are that's it and i would know that this work has been going up in twenty years and it wasn't till two thousand and eleven i believe that the union decided the project went on too long now another fact is nothing in federal labor law regulates the weight that look like the body weight this agreement could have said it terminates in two thousand ninety five with the conclusion of the project whichever is earlier and we wouldn't be here today because i want to go on forever i mean you could go on the way i read it i could go on for ever and ever and ever after one after the project is completed right but it's still as if it was hills it can't be terminated that this agreement will apply throughout yes but this doesn't give ally the right to keep this agreement going forever or is it very simple the union can end this agreement as to another project or just simply refusing to enter into  that's sort of runs right into labor policy doesn't if you say you can you can't stick with our perpetual agreement or you cannot contract with us that that's not much of a choice is i think as to each independent jobsite yes i think it is a choice it's the same choice that the union had when we went to the union offered them this deal for phyllis i thought now maybe i misunderstood and easily could misunderstood now we're talking about these other jobs i thought you had acknowledged and the union and acknowledged that as to other jobs and other projects this those things could be that piece of the contract could be taken out i know we would only be looking at the faro cell project right yes i agree with you when the court presented the question to those article twenty suspend article one section for our answer and the union's answer is yes ok so since that's probably not that the most defensible ground you've got let's talk about the fearless holes project sure what it is i understand the saying you've been there for two decades the anticipations would be there for at least another five and you could take on more jobs and more jobs more jobs it goes on i mean at some point doesn't it go beyond the found it was modified three times the most recent in one night i think two thousand and nine ok at that time the union knew that work was going on and it went back into that contract frankly i think the court's focus in the union properly placed in the union's mutual mistake or unilateral stay claims and if that's the case then don't we have factual issues here is a mistake a classic question of you're proud of it boys you've done this stuff before you know what you're doing yes ok thank you mr thank you very much it doesn't it doesn't help the problem of the fact that for twenty going on twenty two years now the union and don't forget that the union represents the workers that work there has been stuck with this collective bargaining agreement  it is often in and indeterminate duration will help us out with that start with this point in the briefing and here at the podium mr said look we've negotiated this thing with of three times most recently thousands three they know what's going on here and they they come back and they work with us it's not like it's a surprise to anybody that this is a big job everybody knew it was a big job beg for additional wages for its members in the in the context of this agreement that they're stuck with how ninety ninety two you're saying they had no choice but you do it by your account you do have a choice you want the eventually you want the morning said hey this is a contract of indeterminately therefore we should be able to boy did it our discourse whatever we want to we want out ok if that's the truth then why did you go back and renegotiate three times why did you just say it's in the terminal like we're gone unfortunately i can't answer that question because i believe that you know the union was not our client at that point and but so i don't i can't answer the question in terms of why the union did not they just were doing the best they can in terms of getting some kind of wage increase should course of dealing matter to us should we pay attention to how the parties behaved with each other before the union came up with the legal theory that this is a contract term the way i don't believe so your honor in terms of the in terms of the fact that this is a contracted in term it dirt indeterminate duration it again this project has gone on and on it the district court correctly found that  that it was a contract because one party can control the length of this project up the project and i think you know there's been you know if you would think on here if we were to adopt your hypothetical squalling approach opportunity in this labor context in the context of collective bargaining to be able to give the employer reasonable notice at pursuant to the national labor relations act the sticks today notice to say we want to renegotiate this contract and then in the event that we cannot reach an agreement that the parties howel are left with you know their economic weapons and that's what's been foreclosed upon from the unions perspective for twenty something years they've never they if they go  seven years i've never seen a labor contract that last more than five will play your your reasoning then your your career will have determined duration because it's been around for twenty seven years or so and points i mean the fact that it's been if that's the reasoning then there's no such thing as a contract because you know that then you could always say you know what we want to read you go you sound like a professional football player it's time to renegotiate there's still a contract there's a contract the only way out of that contract i guess is on the facts and theories presented to us now is if it's of indeterminate duration right you don't get to get out because you don't like the deal and that's that's correct your honor and again you know we have no idea how long this project may you know may last i mean it may be no one i can't even imagine that anybody anticipated that it would be twenty two years you know it's did how did this come up with the argument about the ohio case you you sort of put out there in your supplemental filing they're taking new contracts with in the contract and they've come back and said that's not true it's one project and and that's all it is i'd like you to expand on that if they've got if the fearless hills project is a single project the fact that it moves in phases from hot phase to the coal face to the roll or whatever the third phase is does it make a difference if it goes in phases i believe it does but again that goes back to the that says it's in effect until completion of the project is by its very nature of an indefinite duration or indeterminate yes your own god would not invalidate scores of contracts of contracts you but even if we even if it were true that we could could sort of sense a certain aura around labor laws that should make us in this regard ordinary principles of contract law the rule suggestion that you're making well how does that affect the economic positions of parties if  are able to say whenever they get the feeling this is longer than we'd like we want out how to how do people plan around the house at a workable rule how would you how would we even frame bargaining agreement for example says it's in effect for the duration of project and that there's a seven percent annual increase in wages and the employer after a while since i am getting killed i don't buy this contract we're going to do about it so it's not only unions that step out of these contracts that would be the case but to be honest with the court and absolutely honestly saw both both my adversary and i we weren't we weren't citing any cases directly on point because there are there aren't any this really is a it's a case of first impression i mean it's you know there are or there are these pieces of general contract law that that apply but we with respect to this issue of you know it is you know because there is no way there is no end in sight and there is it is of in terminable donation duration the then just put the rabbit in the hat there when you said there is no end in sight there there is some spread some money whatever still be done to the pharaoh whatever us x built there will be unbuilt so it's not of indeterminate it's not of of endless to ration it may be at this point that it's to term well both you know i was looking at the did the deaf you know the dictionary definition and whatever and it talks about you know it talks about vague it talks about you know it talks about not having a fixed duration this that there's an end point to the project right i mean isn't there munich you saw at some point the last nail gets polled at some point the last nail gets hold in the union and it members have no idea when that might be but it is a facility the physical facilities may be vast but it the project is limited to that facility and at some point presumably if you're even if you tore everything you that is that is correct that it is correct that they are two different things and apparently they don't have any interest in doing any additional projects so they have decided that they would concede that point but they nonetheless they want to continue to give raises or increase i  the national labor relations act supports the concept you know is of collective bargaining and it's it's it's both that that you know parties have an obligation to bargain collectively at the workers chosen to be represented by a union right right and that but that ultimately it's a balancing that ultimately the parties can use economic weapons and the national labor relations act also supports the use of those economic brackets on both ends both on the union end and on management that management the the article one section that is article twenty that we can extend this any place we want because we take that piece out right then we're stuck stalling the fear of social projects or contract for additional work on that project that's that's all you're left to stand on right that that is correct and that's exactly what appeared to happen according a party  said it's three years it's five years and you send out your notice you don't have it in your contract maybe stupid it made me ill advised but it's still a contract right but it's a contract that we believe that is unforced of all and that we've we've asked for you to declare that we can determine that it with with that we can terminate it within reasonable with reasonable notice within a reasonable period of time so that the parties can be left with their economic weapons and again you know it i don't mean to ask for equity here but i but you've got to remember that they were negotiating for real workers who were working up here nobody's forgetting that there are real agreement during its term so what the unions the result of what the union wants here is that they could have cancelled this contract within sixty days after they signed the argument they make in terms of the union those contracts cannot be read as anything other than intending that this is a one project deal and you don't renegotiate it nine hundred ninety two i directed went to that you and benefit of the bargain we struck as a practical matter if if the contract is as you say and we should pay attention to how the parties behave with each other  over the course of time why is it that you went back to the table and negotiated higher wages and benefits with them three times i mean performs the work secondly mention the ohio case the issue that we could now contract for future work if you look at footnote twenty of the wire case has to work it cannot contract for more because it already has been