arbitration applied to the issue that you say that was decided in your favor and i thought you said should not be arbitrated correct and it should not be arbitrated because there is no agreement to arbitrate the issue in that case in that case in and then the trust agreement of course the applies to both there is a specific exception and that says an arbitrator can not and has no power to change or which is a question of whether payments can be may really requires an interpretation which would be the arbitrator stunk ssion among other things of what is in a rollins within the terms of the trust agreement and in our view also would require the consideration of extrinsic evidence including the fact that payments have been made over many many years in these exact circumstance why is it a modification of the in the matter and which were the appellee some modification because there is a provision that specifically talks about how trustees are appointed  trustees and so that term has no disagreement and it provides that anyone can be an employer trustee and not just someone employed by a participating employer in it in addition wouldn't be dispositive to your honor's fund the council was asked to render a legal opinion on that very issue and rendered a legal opinion that said we've done it for all of these years we've never required that an employer trustee be a member of the participating employer and neither the law more the trust agreement requires that it really says like you just don't want these two guys to be representing any such that a lot by deciding the disputed question and the scope is limited to the provisions of this trust agreement and to the provisions of the rules regulations and bylaws adopted by the trustees and one six seems that we would further the trust makes the participating employer issue different from the payment issue in my respect for the opinion is the fact that there can not be any change or modification and so to send that as a say that the same point in the union makes when it comes to the provision of compensation they're saying the agreement doesn't specifically allow it so that any determination that it would analysis and you agreeing that is a function of the arbitrator and the arbitrator should not decide the merits but i think the outrage should decide the merits the arbitrator should decide the merits of the dispute yeah but in terms of this court's application of whether both matters are are but a bull obviously in order to be able to say with positive assurance that it's not if you were inclined to do that in the one case in which i'm urging you to  do that the court must at least read the provision now i mean if it's and in depth analysis like i think the district court did with risp to the payment issue we suggest that is for the arbitrator but what we think is different about the second issue even though we agree it's a broad scope of arbitration is that doesn't have any issue of interpretation that has specific provisions the finding exactly how administration of the front well that's the one issue that i think the court has to decide that the labor management relations act requires that the trust agreement provide arbit for matters of administration however the struble decision says that you can expand it beyond that and so i think you know in the initial analysis if it's a matter of it ministration then under this trust agreement it gets arbitrated because the standard is broader but even if it's not a matter of administration in one or both of those depending upon whatever standard the court might develop there still found that was clear and unambiguous language we would call the court's attention to this court's prior decision which we think is very similar which has been cited but what i guess trust agreement for revoking authority on changing and modifying the trust agreement disables the arbitrator from the side it so that's the issue that i could think the court  cides i'm not so sure what i can't figure out is how arbitration is disabled for either of these two issues so i mean it at this point maybe we ought rock which is trust is for the sole and exclusive benefit of the beneficiaries on the case in which judgment very founded our favor it was determined that there is nothing in aroused for compensation of these trustees but as a school yes it is called because although we have a very broad arbitration prevention you cannot betray something whether it is clearly not permissible and does not arbitration so he sent for twenty seven years you've been valuation of the law i say that is exactly right your honor i said that is correct they are in violation they have been in violation and it can't be true that violation by simply saying expenses actually incurred this trust agreement talks about expenses actually incurred but doesn't say a word about compensation also uses allowances and uses the word allowances which is something altogether they knew what they were doing and it was followed by both sides for twenty seven years you know you're authorized compensation for attendance a trustee meetings in the past you know take a position that this compensation is not allowed by the issue and you want this dispute to be resolved the only question here is who resolves it is it an arbitrator work is it a court is an arbitrator if the agreement says compensation it's clearly in the statute that mark and words compensation are not in there they are when you're paying an umpire but not when you're talking about the first meet even if you look at the terms of the agreement i mean that says employers when they're talking about one point it doesn't mention compensation so we they want the arbitrator to insert the word arbitrary i'm sorry compensation that's the difference that's the main difference  this a third circuit case that i think is very analogous to the compensation question in which we're the appellant and that's the grilles race case in that case there  were employers obligated to contribute to funds for their employees and there's been a long history like there's a rich history here of not doing that for probationary employees who were code standard the wording pleads for wu to people for their wages but the court looked at the history of not having contributions provided for probationary employee for a long period of time just as we do have here for the payment of compensation and relying on the supreme court case will call any trust versus omaha it said the practical interpretation of a contract by the parties to it for any considerable period of time before it comes to be the subject of controversy is deemed of great if not controlling influence and so  words and language does need to be arbitrated and add if you had more questions on be happy to answer the distinction but i have you understand that it's both parties are making i'm not sure what i understand