find that there was a consistent practice under the contract or that with provisions govern here we found that some people got breaks at such a time something some people took them at a regular times and there was no uniformity of fact that i could put together to this course states that there's three taps one with whether the collective bargaining agreement contains provisions that govern the issue the second is whether it's the state law articulate the standard on that issue in the third is whether the state has intent not to allow his probation to be altered or removed by private contract now in this case we have an instance where when the meal period provisions were passed the pledge state legislature also passed a blanket exemption from that requirement we're talking about the sections in the five hundred series correction on there were there were milled periods provided before than by the impress your welfare commission ordered that's correct you and i think the practice i whatever the practice was venders there was no penalty provision prior to an action of the five hundred series labor codes so the issue of collective bargaining preemption quite frankly did not arise very often nation well i think that the the penalty provision were actually put into the sea wage orders at some point and then after they were put into the wage order isn't the legislation like this in the twenty six but it didn't didn't remove the so that where those penalties were offered were mandated by the that were the industrial wealth commission put in the county provisions they were authorized to do and i think it was sort of an after the d the exception of the employees and collective bargaining did not apply to the male periods well i think that's a little bit disingenuous not on your part certainly but on the part of the legislature because even if the deal if the opinion memorandum acknowledges that there was an it blanket exemption until january two thousand and two and i don't know how you can ignore the plain statutory language which says that this provision doesn't apply and i think that the l s d acknowledges that prior to january one two thousand and two there was no basis for imposition of these penalties under collective bargaining agreement and what its opinion letter states is that the revision of sort of the five hundred series which was provisions some of which might appear to conflict i said that's correct your honor i think that the fact that the state law has such conflicts and permits the military provision to be altered in under the statute that the way the waiver has to come from the commission right if that industry is going to get a waiver it has to be granted by the commission and i so you can you don't have to pay the lunch period if it's only a six hour week and some you're allowed to have a go late lunch period all those are very specific provisions how does that help your argument that you can there to be it's allowed to be altered in certain specific respects the legislature specifies how does that get is the theory that you can therefore all do it in any way you want because the definition of amending the requirement that's very different where there's one and one section or one industry spelled out ok i mean i think that's that's how i see the distinction that the hypothetical you posed is a much closer question and not one that i've analyzed fully but i think it's a very different question than the one here where six months are spent ten months prior to this action being filed we didn't even need initially passed intel amended engine effective january one two thousand and two stated that this chapter which included the meal period requirements does not apply to an employee covered by a collective bargaining agreement if the agreement expressly provides for the wages hours of works et etc clarified with respect to overtime it was later amended in altered i mean because it clearly contained i mean clearly contained clearly applied to the meal period statute which was contained within sections five hundred and five fifty is five well and i don't even think the deal i see disputes that prior to january one thousand and two there was a blanket exemption for collective bargaining employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement regardless of whether or not it contain that it was to clarify the problem from the beginning that's what it meant that well maybe maybe you think they can do it but it's not there's not much doubt that that's what they intended to do well i mean i think that that's that language is something which is often included in in in the process of legislation but i don't think i have to how you can say that that clarifies it because it indisputably alters it before inst of everything here is exempted and here is saying well now in the if if if it was clarification then he would mean a change the substantive right to change the hc to change the scope of the exemption by altering the language i think the plain reading of the word shows if he did that ok well there are two different arguments for me and one is that they didn't do that that's what i thought you were arguing rationally but what you're saying is you think that the attempt to clarify what a subsequent legislator said you know said they intended i think the words are clear on their face and it would be arrogant construe that not to include a waiver or  didn't bind employers with collective bargaining agreements that leaves you with two issues with them one does that mean that the order is otherwise authorized are no longer valid  which which it policy applied to employees covered by collective bargaining agreements and i think i don't i i think the answer probably is that past maybe sixty was intended to kind of restore the status the thing it's thirty five years old and the collective bargaining agreement has been construed since its inception or meant working real periods and appellant valid it's conceded that for sixteen years she's worked at the plant and they always dispute actually arose when the company started making people clock out and made a place unhappy that's simply how it arose so the process is may not have