bringing this case so there is no lurking issue with in terms of rule sixty eight what is undisputed your honor says that from the period of may two thousand and ten to june third of two thousand and fifteen mr begala worked for the cemetery he earned at the end of his time at the cemetery here and fourteen dollars and seventy four cents an hour he worked the record shows that he worked fifty four and a half hours during the last two week period of his time at the cemetery and that the defendants have refused to pay him his old wages throughout this time the defendants have tried to find that's what this claim is for the wages due under the collective bargaining agreement no your honor they are for the wages o him as an employee of the cemetary there is no need to look at it like to argue look remote and i'm asking this because there are two potential sources for wages one is wages due by contract collective bargaining agreement you name the others wages due by virtue of federal law fair labor standards act which of these is it or are you making both claim no your honor we are stating that because he was not paid anyway just for this two week period he is owed wages under the fair labor standards act years old what he would have earned if the defendants had done what was correct what was lawful and paid him his wages there's no need to look at the collective bargaining agreement in this case because what we're arguing is that he's owed this way just because he worked this time that defendants have not denied ever throughout this case that he's owed wages they have simply tried to find a justification for their own lawful acts first it relates to his ability  that in your brief but an arbitration clause is not a waiver of substantive rights or there would be no such thing as arbitration supreme court has said that even claims under the securities act which cannot be altered by contract can normalize be arbitrated that agreement to arbitrate is not a forbidden waiver so do you have a theory that doesn't depend on this waiver argument which the supreme court has already rejected you that's the holding that i was just mentioning to you write an agreement to arbitrate does not waive statutory  rights and and i don't disagree with that point your honor what were so you need to make an argument that doesn't rely on this waiver thing and the argument is your honor that rights under the fair labor standards act are not waive first of all and second of all that a plaintive has the ability to come to federal court in order to vindicate those rights under the fairly best and the just the waiver argument stated twice your brief cites fourteen so i thought maybe this is wrong that the theme of your argument was simply that the collective bargaining agreement does not require arbitration statutory claims and that is exactly that has nothing i'd say give him rights to be paid and that's what this case is all about the ability of a plaintive to vindicate his right to get paid for work he has already perform for i'm paid wages in a separate hearing before the illinois department of human rights there was negotiated answer as a potential settlement but i had to ask the mediator how am i to pay vega legally she said he was fos heights and security number which i stated i could not in good faith ask my client to pay under a false security card number that we knew in fact was false so the offers completely off the table and your honor to this day i believe we are all mr fake eight hundred three dollars and thirty three cents and i paid wages however i do not know how to pay him legally that's why i made the offer to his attorney to pay him which has been rejected obsolete fast mr vega at the time of his terminations to bring in type some type of documentation you know does that include attorneys and us when we were before mediation in the illinois department of human rights there was a disputed offer to include wages attorneys is no mention of the f l a us itself however there is a clause that it is any dispute regarding pay or hours or working in issues there anything that refers to any federal statute is that there is not is there any way that given the language of fourteen penn plaza this collective bargaining agreement can be construed as applicable to federal statutory rights as opposed to rights under the collective bargaining there is a collective bargaining agreement in issue and there is a way in which the employee can address his issues that that is the pay for the paper procedure where do you find that in fourteen penn plaza i don't know apps that's the controlling authority in this case that's the more power marching orders from the supreme court and i believe the issue in penn was well it was actually a case under the age discrimination employment act times human rights law so i would say that they were addressing separate laws that are an issue in this case and they didn't say it was anything specific to the a t f a question was whether under what circumstances or collective bargaining agreement waives resort to the federal courts for a federal but i'll believe in ten he had gone through part of the grievance procedure part of proceeding to federal court