previous a fourth degree assault under the state of washington criminal laws and a terminator as a result of that the reason he gave to the union was this a nursing home regulation provides  and would prohibit it seems to me this person being employed by anyone who was operating a nursing home whether they were licensed to services and doing so that gives us a basis for the discharge and not only that because the standard of review is so stringent what the hospital is saying is that that contract that private voluntary  a public agency provides an overriding public interest mandates the vacating the arbitration all of that against the public interest is that you don't have someone with limited that it's not up to a private party entering into a contract to determine what public policy is that's up to lawmakers it's up to the legislature it's up to the course it's up to regulatory agencies and the regulatory agencies particular facility and didn't the term and the somebody who's been convicted of first degree assault can't work in that facility so it went with the hospitals and it was ok we decided we decided that we're going to abide by these regulations and that that public policy doesn't provide a public policy because it's quite the contrast applicable to a single facility does not constitute a public policy it's a policy that they choose to to to abide facility and thereby them render the hospital learn liable or criminal prosecution breach of this contractor or well i can i can tell you that no governmental agency would have any a contract a voluntary contract between this particular hospital and the department of social services i understanding now that this and this is only from reading it because i wasn't able to flesh it out of arbitration but when i read the contract  looks to me like it's just a mechanism for them to get paid by medicare and medicaid patients nothing more so the hospital wants to treat a particular kind of patients and get paid for it by the government sell it let's say that they would have provided issue here would be back pay and reinstatement that we true true true i mean at this point she's well past the three year or so couldn't be reinstated anyway so also all the no no no she cheated actually she must be arbitrator didn't get to the question of whether or not deb challenge had regularly scheduled or unsupervised access to patients that's what the regulations this is the hospital for a person who has regularly scheduled unsupervised access to the patients she said because the regulation doesn't apply i'm not going to get to that part of the analysis well with a hospital bed so that is evidence in the form of declarations to the district court you never got to cross case that the union relies on in arguing that the evidence that wasn't presented to the arbitrator should not be considered here and should have been considered at the district court for you actually look at that case what the case shows is if there was no cause to not to send the evidence if there was no analogy would be the best way to explain this i think why that issue didn't come up and why is he just didn't present the evidence at arbitration and this is basically similar to say you have a gender discrimination claim a woman comes forward and claims that she's been what it is i think you're absolutely right it's very complicated and that leads into another point that like to make that first of all i think that that complication wasn't recognized by any of the parties including the union's attorney until after the you don't know what the other brief is going to be like and the simultaneous briefs community and the union's brief said well look this employer was licensed long use if you care hospital and therefore the nursing home regulations don't even apply doing right and that's the first time this came up anywhere that's what you're saying correct your brief or already been filed to the issues that it in argue as i read the contract to quote him for example and as i interviewed the contract indicates that he can have an opportunity because it wasn't before the arbitrator to discover any additional evidence on that contract like to let you know that if it were not dealing with obviously that's not the case she believes that she was making her decision in accordance with the law but as it turns out that wasn't true and we discovered that after by presenting the evidence from the department of social services which indicated suppose we were going to agree with you that this contract would be contrary of or that the our vision board was contrary to public policy because it would require the your client to violate the law i guess that's probably what it would be but it wouldn't believe your heart would be required to violate a law by hiring this there's the long term care unit which is the nursing home and that section five point seven speaks to the fact that nurses regardless of which unit they're primarily assigned to are required to float to any unit or twenty department for that matter in the hospital record here but what i remember the evidences being is that most nurses aren't qualified to float between the long term care in the acute care portions of the hospital so as a practical matter they don't do it it just so happened that they have jones was qualified to do it and sometimes she was asked to do that and she did it but nothing in the contract mandates that she goes back and forth and in fact most nurses didn't go back and forth and i'd like to address briefly how the arbitration went down and what we all assumed and sent her an email is that it's under this doctrine you don't have jurisdiction anymore and she agreed and she didn't have jurisdiction anymore so if she just had no power to reopen the case and she recognized that case had that contract been entered and had then those department of social services employers can call to testify at that hearing but they were so as a result you don't just get to do a factual analysis once you get to the federal court you're left with a very heavy burden of showing that the record before the arbitrator and her word resulting from