collective bargaining agreement could be had firstly affected by the ongoing negotiations between the parties to the litigation over the proposed new procedures for selecting candidates for negotiations between the parties was because there was a longstanding bargaining history between the sheriff's department and that regarding specifically the bonus provisions section of the contract which was triggered by the department telling a lead we have to make a change to this position or that position or the selection of a certain position based on the plaintiff class counsel representation that those changes needed to be made to comply with the trial court's orders we actually negotiated seventy seven changes in the time period when the department the parties to the litigation had  eliminate on a selection criteria provision which is in the contract rather the parties let us to believe exactly the opposite because they came to us seventy seven different times and said we just need to tweak this and make a few changes based on what's necessary to comply with the trial court's orders so no a lad was not on notice had no reasonable way to know that these ongoing negotiation which they were not a party which they had no notice which they were never advised us would in fact were intended by the parties to change and in fact the women ate the bonus provisions of the  was authorized now because we don't know that the study was authorized but the point is that we what we didn't know was that the study was designed to change the existing m o u provisions instead they led us to believe the opposite that the existing emmel you provisions could co exist with the study because they came to us seventy seven times and said i only need to do is make this change and we can comply with what the court requires so they didn't make the decree and the court action they're now going to be raised to guard against everybody that's going to have a claim against these findings in the study i'm sorry could you repeat the question i didn't hear are the findings of the study adopted by management going to  commissioned in two thousand i believe it was and between two thousand and two thousand and three there were seventy so most a hundred different occasions while that study was going on that we negotiated changes that they felt were necessary to comply with the court's orders and the studies it wasn't until they decided when the study was completed that they were going to implement that wholesale and eliminate the contract provisions so it and that was what prompted mr her list correspondence to us and april second was that now that an study was completed or nearly completed and to the point now where the parties were discussing implementation rather than simply defining the positions and how the study was going to be conducted so that was the first  twenty five year old consent decree litigation but we're here today at the same table because we both agree that the intervention of a lads will hinder and delay the department's efforts to comply with the consent decree and related orders the issue for the court is that the courts decree is not going to have refuted got out there in the labor negotiations that are ongoing in the future if i understand your question your honor you're asking if a lies is allowed to intervene will that have an impact if there are if there if they remain barred from the litigation if they didn't participate in any of this then along comes labor negotiations you're going to pull this consent decree out your pocket  say we have to do this because the district court ordered it or is that oh an open book for negotiation as to what effect this to create has on future labor relations our obligation to collectively bargain i completely separate from our obligation to comply with consent of this is not race judicata in the labor negotiations certainly the impact of the district court's order might influence the way that the department approaches its collective bargaining negotiations why aren't they a real party and interest your us allies is not a real party because of the fact that our collective bargaining obligations are separate from our obligations in this location the consent a great place then you want to say they're separate and that this one this will affect their labor negotiations i just respectfully disagree your honor because the department has an obligation to engage in collective bargaining to goes rations without being impaired by this consent decree i don't i don't understand your question what effect does the consent decree have on the labor negotiations not absolutely not can i write that in an opinion based on your representation today no your honor can manage the department will certainly in gauging collective bargaining to go sheesh and influenced by what it must do in order to comply with consent decree but the obligations themselves are independent if a lives does not believe that we are engaging in collective bargaining negotiations appropriately they have remedy to pursue that through the los angeles employee relations commission whether or not the department gauges its in its collective bargaining to go she ations is separate from whether or not the department complies with the consent decree for two distinct questions and that's why it's our case your honor and if that is a violation of collective bargaining obligations they have a separate and independent remedy to pursue those issues all right and then you're saying that without regard to what the district court says in the consent decree the study and planning for the implementation efforts what she characterized as those tweaks are to those interim processes and procedures and one thing that i would like to emphasize based on what the appellant mentioned is that in one thousand nine hundred seven the department was ordered to validate the selection process and the selection process at that point had already been determined to be discriminatory so a lot should have been aware at that point the wholesale changes to the selection process would be required in order to comply with the  position portion of the consent to create and timeliness is the threshold inquiry so returning to judge these are questions if a lads was untimely and moving intervene the questions relating to the interplay between the consent donna one other issue that i would like to mention is that the prejudice to the parties which is what we talked about in our brief is potentially substantial if the department if a large is permitted to intervene because of the fact that a lives will be able to inject its collective bargaining grievances into this federal consent decree litigation and a separate remedy in fact the exclusive remedy is provided for by state law in order to do so and that's why it's the pelleas position that the injection of those grievances here would delay and hinder the department efforts to comply with the consent decree if the court has no further questions thank you very much the entry of a judgment against them as well as the department they in fact settled while the case was pending here on the first appeal in america but if if for some reason an issue arose and my understanding is in the record there they have all these agreements or some seventy seven as of two thousand and three those records that process is an ongoing process so if an issue came up the rest judicata it's not going to apply because there's nothing in was a quota under the former system and the quota consisted of certain jobs if you had a case that two women incumbents in there you could have another woman go in less one of those women left that was the quota the good faith efforts process which is in effect now ha to both at the bargaining table and in any proceeding before the employer relations commission to enforce our bargaining rights that they are bound by the provisions of the consent decree and  with no judicial finding that any provision of the m l you created or had any adverse impact created any discrimination or pull on any discrimination that was never any judicial finding that this provision of  get into a position because frankly no county agency is going to say well we don't have to listen to a federal court and that's basically the position that we would be and saying we have the department has an obligation to bargain with us despite the provisions of this federal court order and as a state agency or county agency is simply not going to put themselves in a position of