them as c c c for the district and i also want to distinguish the fact when i refer to the were poorly i mean the board and not the board of trustees to hopefully not confuse you and if there is some confusion please stop  but one of the facts that we that we want to point out and emphasize is the fact that in this case had some some way the history to it in two thousand and sixteen there was an unfair labor practice charge with regards to an arbitration award from a dismissed the complaint to date despite the fact that the order from the board has the admonition that the aggrieved party has thirty five days to petition this court for review of the of the morning my order to you has never file review we're talking about how can we say we have a mix question of law and fact when we have facts that are disputed and we are to apply the law for those facts and yes i typed it in your honor question of why in fact and you all can have the opportunity to review those but in this case in that case it then goes on shortly thereafter talking i refer to them myself as buckets where it says that the court is really going to look at whether it's just a question of fact whether it's a question of bar or whether it's a mixed mixed questions and have proceed from there so while while we agree typically that the that is that this reviewing court is going to work and can apply t to the to the law this case in this instance really there is there's not really any application to make here i don't think that there is any other argument to make with respect to this issue that the union never filed its  petition for review in a timely manner whether there are some factual issue we can discuss whether that happened or not i i don't really can't fathom where that is so it's your position the less there are facts in dispute we don't apply rules makes question are i agree i don't think we need to go that route we don't need to go down there and that's why i look at that elementary school district case is that i think the court yes that's where the st thing they're going to look at but if you can really kind of define down and paragon what the issue is that we're looking at here and this case i think it's pretty easy that it's just the issue of one of the three issues i think we want to talk about is whether whether the specialty of the the board is the we need to basically reopen the case and as i describe it is as we take it's own appeal of its decision where the full walk clearly states that the the reviewing body is this core and that's where the union should have gone in two thousand and sixteen arbitration that's one of the many you know arrows wherever that the board happens but in those cases there wasn't a question that the party asking for a review of the board asked for remained for four arbitration they didn't blow their statutory deadline ask for that review those cases those parties were properly in front of the reviewing body and in those cases and again i don't want to go down the rabbit hole on that one but at least in those cases the arbitration was discussed by the courts in those cases  posing counsels is that there's just this isn't a this isn't happen every day this is a pretty rare instance i often joke to my colleagues that in ninety years of labor relations jurisprudence we've found pretty much no cases that match what's going on here the to boil it down is that if the if the labor board has an opportunity to revamp its vacated a war has not remained a death case to arbitration that creates the final war and the aggrieved party must file its petition for you with the public or that's exactly what didn't happen here so we would be people who do well they can review whether whether they can remember a case to arbitration or amount certainly that certainly i think the union's position i understand that they're trying to take the position that this was the nd plane to surrender leading right into it is that they didn't push they couldn't proceed really have ever argued that remain and was  is this finding decision right so that's what they would have been contesting is it or is it not binding persons are they entitled to re arbitration as they there that the board that you make is that the labor board has has brought remedial powers that they are the experts they can fix these problems so the question that that the district has which i find the very interesting take by the board their argument is sixteen final order was after that ultimately the decision was the decision was made a little asian had ended i think part of the question and i don't want to get too esoteric on this is one of the question that's raised is whether there needs to be a final and binding decision on the merits of the underlying grievance and that your honor as we've argued is not found anywhere they haven't produced any case law to support that decision the statute doesn't support back we n and the issue that we raise the example is oftentimes in collective bargaining agreements there are procedural parts of the grievance procedure that exist in twenty days to file your grievance an arbitrator can very say that was not going to hear the merits of the case going to follow the procedural the procedural requirements of the contract and dismissed the case the board for its part basically doesn't respond to that union's tries to say well that's not what we're talking about here but sure this  wasn't a actually decision on the merits of the case it's a procedural question which ended the case and that's what the district argues happened exactly in this case that the labor board looked at it in two thousand and sixteen and sat the cases over  know we dismissed the underlying complaint and so as as we read of the grievances over there is no more avenues for the union to have taken other than the come to this court and ask for a review of the labor board's decision which they didn't do and perhaps your that that question may be different if we were here in a timely fashion but i'm i i just don't think the union met their burden and we just we just are there to that extent again we want to go turning to the nd point with regards to the broader medial powers and i don't want to repeat myself here but again the the union really has this are you that well we are we do have a nd case and that we could have somehow we did have a procedural process to do so and as i said i don't think the facts lay that out clearly they could have asked for email and they knew it was him they knew it was something the parties had discussed even prior to the filing of the you well pete the truth is your honor is that the union took a little geisha strategy that they chose they wanted the whole enchilada they wanted the underlying arbitration award in force and that was the sole strategy they were going to take and they work in the back office they didn't back off that once they got the hail cheese decision in two thousand and sixteen the circuit asked in their briefs ready remedies that board you know deems deems appropriate they didn't ask for it when they reviewed it to the labor board in two thousand and sixteen they never bothered to appeal that final order and in the st instance to come to this court to ask for so i similarly with the bore and the bore kind of makes the same argument but again another case that side is there now if you made a transit union case in your honour's i understand that's not a  was in there an official decision of the corps but again i ask for some leeway because this just doesn't happen very much but in that case what the what the the court has said he validated trancing case is that one of the one of the decision back from l g brosnan sometime in late two thousand and sixteen it's dismissed that he dismissed the whole the whole complaint and me and the union then appealed to the to the labor board which then in its decision states that w review the l j decision we have no change we're going to affirm it and that's where that's where we sat and still on the whole several months later the union comes and files another one for labor practice charge alleging that they they meet they they they need an opportunity to re arbitrate it's it's our position that the you know the the position of the union is that they will create a situation where it's going to fundamentally change anything wrong what they said was because the arbitrator issued this decision now giving you the opportunity to follow your written closing that gap decision is not binding based they did not speak to the merits of parties have changed somewhat well i think it's five years later that when the two thousand and sixteen decision came down the case was dismissed the litigation was over so it didn't seem to make a lot of sense to the city colleges to that and the union d once there are litigation strategy failed they then try to come and resurrect this this remains for there's a new arbitration at that point the litigation was closed which i don't want to take too much time but that's exactly was our rd point which is we're creating is should we should we be remaining to arbitration or not i think the st the st answer to that is that may be something which could have addressed if he had been properly placed in front of you in two thousand and sixteen with the union had petitioned for review of the other two parts of it in this instance are that once the final order is entered the litigation is is done so what we're doing here is creating a new path any new remedy which isn't future for recognize under and one way w thank you your honor may it please the court my name is elizabeth reynolds and i represent the city college's contingent labor organizing committee i e a n e a which may also hear referred to as the  i'd like to start by correcting the record as to what occurred in the aftermath of the arbitrator's initial award it was not the arbitrator who suggested  in two thousand and fifteen then that the case could go back to another arbitration with a different arbitrator what happened was that after the college brought the error to arbitrator greco detention arbitrator greco sent a letter to the parties on june th of two thousand and fifteen in which he acknowledged that he had made a mistake and he stated that he would consider his original award to be simply a preliminary draft and that he was inviting the college to file its pros hearing brief as originally as they had originally requested to do and that he would consider the matter of a new and that he would be issue a but the arbitrator ultimately after some time had passed sent another letter saying that since the college has declined the opportunity to file a brief i'm now turning my preliminary award into a final award issues but i would like to address the merits if i may the general assembly's statement of policy in section one of the educational labor relations act provides that unresolved disputes between the educational employees and their employers are injurious to the public and in furtherance of that policy test section ten c of the act requires that every collective bargaining agreement shell contain a grievance resolution procedure which  act because the grievance has already been arbitrator but that is simply not true the arbitration procedure was in complete as the educational labor relations board determined in the st proceeding when the college says that it has already arbitrated this grievance it is contradicting the position that it took and for bailed on in the st one for labor practices case in that st case to the board in the college was not binding because quote city colleges was not allowed to complete its presentation unquote so after prevailing on an argument to the labor board in the prior case the college should not be permitted to come and tell this court that it has already arbitrated the grievance the parties did take place to take part in an arbitration hearing not that much is true but that was as far as they got and they did not accepted the decision of the labor relations board in the st case at the time of when the college proposed in two thousand and fifteen to go to a new arbitrator the union believed in good faith that the college had received adequate process from arbitrator greco because he had offered here to acknowledge that his st award was  well your honor at the time there the union did have we had numerous this is and this is not the issue that's before the court now but the union had numerous pieces of case law that we say that to the board in the st case where there had been various procedural problems and and decisions of arbitrators had still been found to be binding that was the position that we took at that time  when the administrative law judge in the st proceeding ruled against the union the union at that point did attempt to take the college up on his offer of free arbitration that was february of two thousand and seventeen and it was only two months after the college had filed a brief to the labor board advocating quite forcefully or to the l j advocating very forcefully for re arbitration the union did attempt to take the college up on its offer at that point at the end of the st labor board proceeding because the labor board had found that arbitrator greco was not in a position to decide this case so there was no lower decision maker for them to remember to at this point board's order of this before this court is that the union demanded that city colleges arbitrate or re arbitrate the grievance and the board found that because there was an arbiter prevents and because the grievance process hadn't  your there's no question fair for using the word war because you're applying it because the board applied it to the statutory standard to determine that city colleges violated the liberalizations act this two separate unfair labor practice charges and proceeding due to created by the board in two separate and appropriate orders on different issues and alleged violations of the act different conduct was underlying the two different alleged violations of the act as cited in the arbitrary my understanding is that blinds greco decided that ok i will go ahead and issue my decision it will be your final decision back and the union correct after they ok and the board and then after the l g decision which was the recommended decision and once again after the board decision not st case the union demanded arbitration again right i arbitration and when city college is declining that's what precipitated the charge which led to the order that's before this for right now the labor board of the st case determined that there was no binding and for not been completed because no binding final award has been issued and that's because in the st administrative proceeding we were board siding with the colleges that there is no binding a war that's the only the st case where the union as they did here meter fresh demand for armature ation city colleges refused and then the union brings an action to compel arbitration the board in this order hasn't been completed the union makes a fresh demand for arbitration and that's how i perceive that it's an appropriate process even if rio arbitration could have been awarded by the board in its st order it does not preclude it from ordering it state argued in this case is that well we just didn't have the issue of riyad attrition finest so you know we just didn't look at it it doesn't seem to make any sense that they may claim as they do in both parties do with their briefs that they have broad powers to think that somehow arbitration in his decision that the bor the board just waved and said well we're not going to take a look at it because that's not in front of this it just doesn't make any sense and certainly doesn't seem consistent with the powers granted to the to the to the board under the act to that extent just kind of going back is that you know if there was an issue with that there should have been properly placed before this court within thirty five days for a petition from the  district very much of this agrees with that st of all is that the process was completed once the board d render the two thousand and sixteen case the litigation was over that's it the case was over at that point binding or not the nd part of considered and then case law it's an issue of st impression by this point if you agree with that position you're essentially taking that out of the the possible possibilities of the labor board to fix labor relations problem in creating a new remedy that  not here or exist there's nothing in the statute or any case law cited by anyone that says there has to be a final and binding award on the merits of the case that just doesn't exist and if this court agrees that ever firms a labor force a decision there was a that can never was resolved in two thousand and sixteen when the board stressed the underlying complaint which then ended the litigation on the underlying grievance the the other issue and i just want to briefly touch on  this which back to the chicago teachers union case we also stated that we agree that it wasn't necessarily only if the underlying hearts are on point but again your honors it's a pretty rare instance here in the heart that we parsed out in the brief is directly on point with respect