anderson please proceed when you're ready good morning your honor michael anderson for the appellate communication workers of america eighteen c and the communication workers have a contract that governs the definition of or parties agree that under this agreement that at those those workplaces that existed as of the commencement of this contract would be subject to binding arbitration  question the supreme court is currently considering and the henry shine to case it it dovetails with that kind of provision because it has to do with the circumstance and circumstance in which the agreement provides for arbitration over some matters and carve outs for others and i guess my question is do you agree that the question that we have before us is bound up in the question that the supreme court has before and now and the henry schein case yes i do  henry shy right i mean it has it has a general rule of no arbitration and then a specific area in which arbitration is to go forward so i'm not sure that the contracts are necessarily a enough but in any event the court has to interpret the contract in order to determine the question of cases there's an arbitration provision that says something like all disputes to be governed by arbitration under aaa will maybe except for a few but here i mean section three c is very specific about the narrow things that would be arbitrated  it says the issue of the description of such units shall be submitted to arbitration and then it goes on to say the arbitrator shall be confined soley to the determination of the appropriate unit prepared any and i think if you read that in connection with with section nine which says with the exception of matters referenced in paragraph three see the meaning or application of this agreement shall not be subject to arbitration mean reading all of that together or doesn't was but you know i guess the overall question though still is under the supreme court's cases and st options and it's eighteen t case a question of contract interpretations not a question about a general warrant to carve out of things like that every contract is arguably different and you have to take a look at the way a specific contract is written i'm not sure that you now you can establish the typical for the interpretation of every single that it otherwise would not have which aren't legally enforceable about how to deal with nuance and acquisitions of companies that are going to require it moreover it's the assumption was made that the acquisitions heavily unionized this is a this is a neutrality agreement to work in eyes well it's already organized it does not apply and that is what paragraph six means up and we have a general rule website is not the same and one need only look at the very narrow question on which sir was granted in the shine case which was discussed extensively in the oral argument there and it was described by commentator is the comment the most prominent theme of the argument was how now the question was because they assumed in the question that it was an otherwise clear and unmistakable delegation of the question of  arbitrator and i think justice so it will come it will once we've said that's the question pretty much answered and it's such a narrow question it's an artificial question it is not the question in this case we do not have a clear and is because there's if you think if one were to think that the incorporation of the a means that the question of arbiter build the goes to the arbitrator at least in some situations covered by the agreement would you  ability of some things and i i don't not that's really taking issue with your proposition that well ok well the things that it and allows for arbiter ability of our narrow that that may or may not be true but i guess all i'm saying is by incorporating the aaa rules as expressly as it does without any kind of caviar then it's at least talking about are the arbitrator making arbiter ability determinations in some corpus of situations and then if one of the parties said well this is one of those situations and the other party says well no it's not then it seems like the difference we're talking about between this case and henry schein is kind of a ratio question of how big or small is the corpus of things as to which arbiter ability goes to the arbitrator and it's not immediately apparent to me why it'll at least wouldn't be the case that what the supreme court says and henry schein could bear on the resolution of a case like this and whether there isn't a minute under a minute from a line to be drawn between cases where there's a narrower set of issues that are arguable that are subject to it's a matter of fact the pleading that the union has identified not a single organism unit that whose definition is improper and that needs to be are they just make this broad conclusory statement in violation of trombley and the standard test which the district court applied and they don't identify a single unit that creates that previously exist which is all of the arbitrator would be combined with the failure of the union to plead with specificity a possible units that needs to be that is in dispute without that they don't get into the the parties here are disagreeing about the definition of a bargaining and right in other words whether it includes time were jobs that that's what the dispute is not so if the court if if if the court decides that but but but to paragraph three c one says disputes are rising under are subject to arbitration of the aaa rules and under your view that would occur there would be no arbitration because it would be resolved by the district what to do with new hired new entities acquisitions cement times right now thank you very much i can i can i just fall about and i'm not following one thing which has to say if there's no dispute whatsoever what's the difference and then it's not there's no mistake i mean it just sounds it sounds similar to me but well there are different there are different formulations and that's why i prefer to use the formulation of the supreme court in its infancy technologies which it has to be clear and unmistak disputing question and even where there is a presumption if there is positive assurance that's the supreme court's friends and i think that's good and there certainly is positive assurance that that delegation has no application to this case and which tells you that the parties understood paragraph nine somewhere to contain an obligation a limitation on the union's ability to proceed outside the contract and when you look at paragraph nine aside from ok thank you thank you to both counsel will take this case under submission