begin there i want to right to the chase your allegation is that the time she's have these individual the photos were fraudulent that is the basis of your claim as i understand it but they are opposing counsel says but the ca's do authorize those payments so it seems to me that the entire case is about the meaning of the collective bargaining agreements and i'd like your response to that they both submit time sheets for a full shift the nd complaint is the no show complying where you didn't member does not show up at the job at all yet submits a time sheet us again why isn't this whole case about interpret in the collective bargaining agreements and whether they do or do not and i'm not suggesting they do or they do not but the question is whether they authorize the defendants have failed to point to any particular provision that they believe authorizes the to do claim to violations nothing in the agreement allows a member to submit timecards for  from an interpretation of these rooms but what we haven't heard from the defendants is that a particular provision in this agreement authorizes the specific violations of agreement or it alleged complaint there are a couple provisions that they throw out there such as such it four dollars of the agreement which is that there shall be a guarantee of eight hours work to the employees what ordered in turn to work but if i'm understanding your question correctly the time sheets were fraudulent we paid basted reliance on those time sheets because those time sheets overstated the amount of hours worked we yes so and in order to determine if you separate damages the union would have to have an opportunity and the individual defendants would have to have an opportunity to show that they were not overpaying by pointing to their situation side by side with the collective bargaining room and that's where we disagree because the and overpayment and once you get into the weeds in the collective bargaining agreements they say we were not overpaid because there are variations that authorized payments that were made to us in the situations know and we don't know whether that's right or wrong but the only way we would know is to have someone explain how they worked where they were given what the collective bargaining agreement permitted by way of payment for that work but they do it up point to a specific provision in the agreement and says this provision authorizes us to no show for work and play with eight hours or do they point to the arbitration provisions do not apply they don't cover disputes between the defendants in this case it applies the arbitration provision definition of grievance applies only to disk use with the local that they knew there because at least the findings and recommendations make specific reference to a provision which makes it pretty clear to me or these you see this indicate that individual workers are covered as well arbitration provisions of this case is limited in its scope to claims between the employer c e t at the local union throughout section sixteen  collective bargaining agreement which sets forth the terms of the arbitration provisions and that's the the graduated steps toward possible arbitration appeal the word grievance is used to capture this universe of those claims that can't be created arbitrated the agreement is of the members and it is the members that are sue it's the members who wages are at issue so there it is of course the members knew they had an underpayment claim they would be bargaining agent on behalf of the the individual in ways there are instances where non signatory do it in force the agreement on behalf of the represented parties but i don't case the or workers who have been station as determined by a mix of provisions they're entitled to premium and they're entitled to show up in reporting here and sometimes for hours sometimes it hours depending on the particular circumstances they're entitled to vacation a holiday pay and don't need to show up on a vacation they are entitled in certain circumstances to stand by and wait in a section thirteen dollars of the like the bargain in the office on monday and there's nothing logical in about that if that is the method understanding and practice of that employment you can also imagine these great workers who are asked for whatever contrary finding that where there has been a rico claim that alleges we were payment or underpayment wages benefits provided by a collective bargaining agreement that it is not subject to determining reaction on this one versus under the r l a is virtually indistinguishable there's only one meaningful distinction and that's the inverse is ordinary preemption not relevant here so in terms of the question is that would be is the case well it would be your honor and the proper disposition is to dismiss without prejudice which is what judge simon did here and so and see i wishes to pursue arbitration after that dismissal it can attempt to arbitrate the case will have whatever contractual defenses we have in that arbitration some of them may be maybe on the merits but but it will go through the arbitration process and if at the end of that arbitration there is an award that they that confirms c position that says yes we are time sheets were fraudulent and yes those overpayments indicate something that he was entitled to then it may be possible at that point in time for here in fact throughout the briefing we strenuously argue contrary that the collective bargaining agreement doesn't fight all our workers to property in or each of the claims so my time is running down unless your honour's have further some ambiguity in the agreement that requires it ter protection and they have yet i can say they have your college has just done that by saying that the provision you cite has to be read along the way has a laundry list of other provisions and along with past practice between the parties and along with the facts of each individual employee to determine we still have no explanation of it and they have not tried at all to explain what part of the collective bargaining agreement would allow a no show for eight hours or the split shift complaint that we have but among other things can council has referred to the practice between the parties and that is a typical thing that comes up in labor arbitrations and isn't permissible ground for interpretating a collective bargaining practices this agreement expressly excludes evidence of past practices for interpretation of the agreement any prior local agreements are cancelled or superseded past its customary practice the interpretation of this agreement according to the integration clause in the c p a the williams declaration which they submitted to discuss pas practices talks about past practices talks about industry standards but does not explain where in the cream at that the standards can claim eight hours when they don't show up for work or where the agreement