the board the company's actions within the compass or scope of contractual language granting the employer the right to act unilaterally because the provision in the management rights clause granted the company the right to determine the amount of work needed and other professional obligated the company to pay overtime wages for certain hours were voting for them on schedule but over time for business not contract the language granting the employer the right to act unilaterally at all and the e normal hours and when you read that together are to call article law on he is there something beyond normal hours the employers are obligated to pay overtime but board in its free parker jet explanation that said that article six section one only limit the money of the sort of forty hour work week and article one and section d decision i have the decision the funding me and it's read together the provisions authorize the employer to determine the amount of war in need of the technicians to perform and  rights assigned work hours right to determine work shifts things like that this is an atmosphere very abnormal articulation of a right schedule at work and also if it relates to different rights that the employer would prince to do it seems to me that you have omitted from your argument something that could be of crucial importance to your side of the case which is that that arguably the employer has deviated from what the contract provides that the that it can it is indisputable that the that the employer has not provided in accordance with the contract because both a's provide that in such circumstances quote the company will st see qualified volunteers to perform such work and if there are no qualified volunteers then the least senior qualified person will be assigned to perform the work now the employer didn't do that the employer had special arrange it in a special way which had granted it certain exemptions and the employer i think in permitted the employer to do i mean even if one takes the position that otherwise the employer would have been acting within within the scope of what the contract allowed the employer to do given the fact that the employer indisputable he did not follow the procedures and the signing work on the basis that was prescribed by the c b aids the employer simply can't can't sustain the position that the that the c b a's allowed what the employer allowed what the employer did i believe that's right your honor i have an education that i think also is way that's a four day work week and when it comes to the installation department you don't have any that you don't have that dichotomy is just a five day work week they do also mention a an additional shift residential installers that shift doesn't added edited any days that shift runs from tuesday through saturday so there's still two days off sunday and monday stuff that that's a five day work week there th it need to talk about the normal work schedule but for reinstallation apparently they just talk about the normal word work schedule for the service department and this and then they had they had a five day work week and then they said there will also be a four day work week since to me that can be read as they as the exception to the normal work schedule for the four day with ten hours and the other thing is the language itself and the employer's r touch about the reasonable amount and quality of the work of art here but it doesn't say as you said it doesn't say anything about extra hours or extra days when were are and  thank you your honor may it please the court greg lauro for the national labor relations board in this case the board properly found that the employer's action was covered by or within within the scope of its agreements under it best which does not determine the amount of work it requires and two in overtime revision expecting payment for overtime including that schedule and regular days off and it was read together that w case you have a trial and try to interpret the contract but what happens here in the context of a magician for a view if we think both sides have some arguments with respect to their interpretation of the language i think that goes to the heart of the contract coverage standard your honor where the courts are cognizant of the fact that the parties can't anticipate and cover every hypothetical so they don't have to specifically mention act and action to cover it so here well the well the normal schedule provisions cover just that the regular schedule in the regular schedule was a change here the employer had a right to the management that over time are can be can be can take place but it is subject to certain restrictions and it's voluntary and and and it's explicitly provided for if it's voluntary and the procedures for picking the people to do that work are spelled out which were not followed by the company by the company here but it does say in a in the many employers rights provision at the end that is subject however to the provisions of this agreement and then when you look at the speak to how the contract holds together you do have a normal or default schedule provision and you also have the right to determine the amount of work needed and to assign over time and days off in the ord reasonably given that structure it made sense for the board to read the management rights and over time provisions to cut out or the temporary addition of additional work but the question becomes what happens if you adopt the said there's only one provision that allows that it's article six gushing wine and it only allows you to start the service technicians regular shift an hour earlier which would seem to preclude overtime which shows that interpretation makes no sense employer didn't get all hands on deck because the employer had granted had granted exceptions which were inconsistent with the contract you in your argument you have not you have not in any way referred to the issue that i raised with your adversary before which is that the employer simply did not follow what the contract person prescribe the employer made its own decision of how it will of who it will call and who will exempt this was not authorized by the contract indeed it was had been explicitly explained the contracts are explicitly to the two a different effect so how can you say that the employer has done what is clearly  called for by the contract or even if it is even if it doesn't have to be clearly called for it's simply it's simply not what the contract provides if i may your honor consistent with the contract the employer required extra work by all  technicians my opponent states nothing in the contract or the parties will put it didn't pay you as a lawyer the employer granted exemptions exemptions because of child care and because of educational things it didn't it didn't take all hands available well example to gareth made its own decision to exempt certain persons for reasons that were satisfactory to the employer can the  it wouldn't make a difference it would be a mere formality and again everyone recognized bet the contract allowed for the requirement of mandatory overtime in those circumstances where there would be an insufficient mandatory overtime for the installation technicians but i'm just pointing out look at my opponent's interpretation now is inconsistent with what their witness just acknowledged on the stand the contrary it allows the employer to assign mandatory overtime when there was an insufficient number of volunteers yes there is a volunteerism provision but you don't stand on that formality when you don't have enough volunteers to get the work that was contrary to the view with the contract and i would say contrary to the language of the agreement is that more interpret it where you have a management right provision that allows you to determine the amount of work which if you don't weighted the overtime vision reasonably means you get to determine how much work you need it dition to the regular work schedule including assigning it on a day off i might not correct in the as in the understanding that what is that stake here is not whether the employer could come out where it wanted to come out in the end what is at stake is simply the question whether the employer needs to bargain in good faith and bargaining in good faith or simply requires sitting down this is what i want to do pretending to bargain without any and you any intention to yield an insurer centimeter on any subject the employer has done what it needs to do and it can come out and say no no i'm sorry that would not permit us to realize what we what we need we'll listen in good faith to to your proposals but it's got to satisfy our needs and it can come out at the end exactly where it started without violating the management rights commission it uses the phrase to determine the reasonable amount of work needed and that sort of the industry standard is if you want to talk about schedule you would you would say the right to schedule more more workers the employer would do and it doesn't speak to the question of additional days of the show of a particular chef or hours at a particular day or time which is you your honor you just heard the company's attorney say that the standard is that it just needs to be a colorable an arguable arguable position not not at all the standard for a contract coverage violation that's a standard for contract  rejected the employer's proffered interpretation when it said well that's a plausible reading of the contract but it's not it's not necessarily correct and that's the standard the standard bearer the th standard not in that standard resembles the standard we adopt today so i think that that would be consistent the local union thirty six dollars approach to the question is consistent with the way you p article six section wind procedures it's hard to credit it's not it's not so clear to me that the case would come out the same way if the employer had not granted those exemptions and had followed