this is a there's some important facts that i think that it's really important at this court understand that this is a grievance over some current collective bargaining language in his collective bargaining agreement for health insurance where the provisions in that contract between my client and local one thousand nine hundred two provides that the health insurance plan that the accrued method that's used for credits is an unfunded liability that the company has in the language is specifically set forth in section eighteen of the collective bargaining agreement which says that the fund is intended to const the firm is intended to constitute an unfunded obligation of the company and that is in the collective bargaining agreement and in this particular case what we have is that the company has always paid all the health insurance that remained in the case back to the court on the grievance committee and the grievance committees instructions and orders with respect to his decision was is that the parties are to negotiate risk that meets the minimum benefits required the minimum standards here before us is not to perform reasonably in that effort to resolve either is what yes it is actually be court is what we have is that the parties were ordered to negotiate the coup or determine after the parties under the court supervision were unable to reach an agreement that the court decided that it would remain to the grievance committee i mean your inability to reach an agreement provided the for the district court to the national labor relations board governance the constant conduct of the parties we look like the national life knowing that is our point that is that is that you or fortunately you all are familiar with the n l r b by by what this court does then a lot of big governs the rules and regulations over negotiations we are remain and prove the judge's instructions negotiated with the union with respect to trying to develop plan we actually came to an agreement on homes all the terms but two one was is that the union wanted binding arbitration for the change of benefits which is a permissive subject to bargaining under the national labor relations you want to change the contract language from funded from unfunded to funded and we refused to agree to that so we wound up in dealing with the court in trying to reach this agreement and the inability to reach an agreement on those terms the bad news is the ruling from arbitration board said our ruling is a pursue that a proceed or be moved forward isn't it what is a procedure move forward everybody had to begin we know this when we were before the judge understood that we were going to go she'll need a new agreement and the judge does runs into one nice word that could have been put in there isn't it negotiate orders the district court entered an order directing the arbitration for sport award what was the arbitration about if you were negotiating before the erbitux ation and we did you say that all you're doing after the arbitration recipient and where the parties have agreed to one then yes that's a term condition of employment but the bottom line was is that we had to know a risk for the health insurance and you should have you should have negotiated a no i think you were in violation over there was one of the law that was the arbitration that was what the arbitration set is that we need to negotiate one and that's exactly what we did you dispute that you had no again because you don't think you have gotten the point i do not see what you do in negotiation has to do with whether the language of this arbitration award as  we have a disagreement is that to us we read it as saying under this provision that we are to go forward with a procedure to get in and a reserve benefit plan the only way the national let's agree on one thing yes you read it that way and your opponent reads it another and the reason we're here today is because the district court said a pox on all your houses go back and embers are put through the arbitration through the board instead of who told you this in initially let them sort out that vague language but that's the way i see it council so where am i wrong you're in the wrong in the concept is that there is nothing in the master contract that requires any particular defined the sounds precisely what you want to tell them argue your point like judge givens i'm thinking our only job years to decide what was wrong with the district court saying you to disagree about what that award means leave me out of it and go back to where it came from and i'm in agreement with all that as a concept and accept it and say we're going back where you came from go to the in the larvae because they are the arbitration award whatever it may mean that the party who is committed an apparent violation that nothing else needs to happen and all that needs to happen is that that party continue to talk about it how would that be ever effective in remedying the validation so i mean not only does it not match the arbitrator's ruling any clearer that seems to me like the least likely possible interpretation of the arbitrator's ruling so i mean how does that mean it doesn't seem to me that your argument gets you much of any way or here's here's a problem we have your honor and i'm not i may interrupt just for a moment because i think you were finishing telling me were you distinguishing between the n l r b well i'm not positive judge gibbons but it sounded to me like you were trying to say it's the wrong entity n l r b as opposed to who is opposed to the grievance committee prelims committee its committee cannot it is a grievance committee within the company whose agreements committed a grievance committee is part of the master contract that we terminated back in twenty committee is made up of management and labor the specific individuals were on each of these are the same folks i think exactly what judge gibbons saying the same people who have been at it interminably here and nobody will take no for an answer but you you say now let's go to the n l r b how do you get there did the district court tell you to go there no you argue that you should go there and yes we are here always that you know that we that  the v a is a grievance committee of well i don't even i'm not clear about that of the i've always thought they were woods that you went to arbitration through no it's n l r b panel who worked it before right and this was the second step of the grievance procedure and that was the ruling in the second step of the grievance procedure by two individuals who ruled and gave this decision about go them but you know we went back and everybody before the judge interpreted that language that we negotiated and the judge had and the judge did a very good job of helping us take us back to the n faith so if in fact the parties are unable to reach an agreement our position with the core was that this is now and moves from the grievance committee to the union can file a charge against a company the argument per se you make it i found the reference it's on page twelve of your brief goes on to page thirteen but the only way that comes into this is your argument that you're done you you national labor relations board has all kinds of remedies that they can issue what what what about that is if you're not telling them to go to the you know are big if you tell today if you think of it from this standpoint the judge and the parties looked at exactly the same language and we all negotiated a a recipient for health insurance per the courts were to remain and per the decision what happened was is that we didn't reach a final agreement over two items the court then on that point could have easily said ok this is something where time is up i'm sorry i was so caught up in the point i was trying to get you to can see i didn't need to you could see you have your arbitration decision and whether it was it was ambiguous or not there the crux of that decision states a ruling is that a procedure be moved forward to correct midwest apparent violation of the five day of the master agreement by way of background the master agreement is that the controlling document here for resolution disputes this is not proper before this issue is not proper for the national labor relations board the book the parties in two thousand and eleven bargain for the collective bargaining agreement whose it properly before it's probably before this court in terms of the appeal that was empty or that the appeal what is the relief that you see let me relief we seek is  is an affirmation of the district court's finding and quite proper finding that the language in the remedy portion of the arbitration award is ambiguous and therefore should be returned to the arbitrator the panel for clarification the parties have two different views of what that means and that the nuance to that of course is that you can't there cannot be reconstituted the same group what do you say about that somebody retired or somebody is gone if you can't get the original panel you look confused and what am i making that up no your honor i'm not confuse the the parties bargain for the benefit and so won't won't be there anymore i mean i want to have one of them i want it one of the employer members or the employer member terminated his employment was no longer employed by the stevedore employer and has and has now been there's been another  to the absentee as opposed to individuals and this this panel in terms of this committee is also governing over grievances by other employers under the master agreements well so not only is midwest terminals affected by this agreement but other employers as well as other unions not only look in one thousand nine hundred two and the committee can draw on the experience as a committee with those other other employers and other unions to clarify the award that i should i should admit here that is it was in our police drafted and could have been much more clear in terms of the remedy as a judge how many found when the parties presented their respective versions of what it meant and if this goes if it is we manage and it goes back to that committee i'm sure midwest as well as the union will argue their respective positions of what it means and perhaps the committee decides that midwest is correct in their interpretation or that the union is going to be back here well and in that a back however if the if the clarification doesn't dry its absence from the contract as federal labor law requires then they could they unfulfilled and the purpose of federal labor law policy is to foster arbitration to resolve disputes not to continue disputes as we have before us like round intensity the contract the master agreement hard does it refer to is is the entirety of the arbitration procedure set forth in the master agreement committee has appointed by the respective organizations that are the umbrella organizations great lakes district council not by the local union and by the great lakes stevedore employers association mr mason is correct that the procedure i was alluded to followed by the local union was to file the grievance when the grievance was denied by the company and they proceeded to step to step two is the grievance committee decision there is a final step that if the panel if the case perhaps and what was what was in vision by the the company as compliance with section five a of the agreement it was a different vehicle to provide benefits to the members but that is our position that's what we would argue before  don't think i have anything else  it was interesting that when this court issued its decision in two thousand and fourteen to me when i read it the judge boggs began the decision by stating that the danger in telling a federal court that a case is really quite simple  that sometimes the case may turn out to be quite simply in favor of the other party or simple in an in favor of your opponent who believe this case is a simple the issue is whether the district court erred in not being able to determine the interpretation of the meaning of the and ward from the record and finding that because two plausible interpretations worse were possible and failing to negotiate we would try to off to the n l r b that agreement was negotiated the parties agreed to take any dispute to this panel under under section twenty five the master agreement the dispute is the meaning of five day of the master agreement we received a decision to that effect by the committee we are seeking now clarification of that decision because as i indicated before unfortunately the the the remedy portion of that agreement there's a couple of very important points with respect to me an issue of the six circuits court rulings are very very specific and i will cite you page nineteen of the union interpretation a clarification the decision it has to go back to the original panel and it cannot be done i mean you're asking in this situation the facts it came out after the judge issued his decision we learned only in january or february of this year that one of the two members of the pale is no longer there so this court now kid not over the court cannot back to the original panel so now you have to have a new person who's going to now try to interpret and he represents fifty percent of the decision making that he's going to interpret what that decision now means and how is he any different than those who work when when when your honor says this looks like a confusing term what did they mean well now we only have one of two people who does not represent a majority to decide what their language is supposed to mean and that then becomes where we wind up with a whole new set of case issues about whether or not it is possible in this situation to have a remain  someone who doesn't even wasn't participating in this is going to be chosen as the substitute will come bearing the same level of experience that makes that that entity would be in your can your negotiations you negotiated that it goes to this that this group it's called a panel it committee of this committee is made up of people with experience right and this next person ought to be then as experienced even know not know but he won't into it what his predecessor had in mind maybe that doesn't matter well may judge it well it because t six circuits language i mean there are a bunch of cases that i would be happy to submit to you in the supplemental because this happened after the court issued its decision it's not a part of the record here but it's an actual consequence of what's going to happen is that the six circuit has repeatedly in case after case after so it has to go to the original panel and there is an actual case where the sixth circuit if you look at the decision that the judge cited person back from the dead i'm sorry six circuit could bring somebody back from the dead kind of thing your honor this is basically what happens in these situations is that if the if an arbitration decision