like to recites a brief restoration of the fast because i think the really important in this case and that's why we asked for oral argument in this case very fact intensive and is very important to during the course of those twenty five years she held in line or more different positions in composition twenty eight or more specific defined duties in addition a broad job description had had fifteen or more formal formal training and of course twenty five years of on the job training she had previously been laid off several times and had successfully back into a position she had been a pain at do as pain union member until she was laid off a last time and have previously  the company horizon we've used to reinstate her they basically determined that she couldn't this position because she didn't meet the qualifications for funding contained in the collective bargaining agreement and will go through those in a minute at that point she became a nonuse pain member because she was continued to be laid off from the company and this concern was with her because she noticed a distinct difference in their representation that she due from her union at that point in time the very different experience and before was very lengthy and the laid there was a lack of communication with her opinion a lack of effort and he retreated to that difference to the fact that she would no longer yes she did and she attributed it to that fact based on a couple of different issues one is a comment by a union official or local officer in which she stated that the union was a union had to represent non who's paying members who didn't have to to represent them that the company shell and later on will provide these time frames in which misleads there should have been given an opportunity to attempt to meet the requirements on the within the time frame she never was given that opportunity it was arbitrarily decided that you didn't section including the negotiation records we have statements from rice's own agent regarding the fact that we classifications were never meant to prevent such as the one ms was or was trying to engage and this was a hotly disputed issue for a long assume and i understand that your you've got an argument that this is not how of collective bargaining agreement should be construed but only there the collective under collective bargaining agreement any employee who's attempting bomb has to be able to accomplish the formal training within one week and assume further and i do understand your contesting this as well that the job into which she is attempting to bomb is appropriately classified and that the skills required for that job are skills that she needs to be trained and within one week we have a fair amount of evidence that she could not get receive the formal herself formal training outside of her job beliefs she had other employees come and help part of our weekly and therefore she'd accomplished that and in fact her and her employer evaluations note that they talk about how she they were very happy that she was able to take on a new position never be formally trained and yet immediately be able to accomplish the task and duties that she'd been assigned again because she took it upon herself in to go out and get that training elsewhere still in the company but outside of work by the union continually to present wrong facts who she worked for how long she'd been employed so and so forth we have a union attorney he was notified in one thousand nine hundred eighty eight last month and this you years later at arbitration notified during arbitration litigation over that very issue of actively a whole half of the evidence at issue wasn't even considered to have a clear how do you know that wasn't considered meaning the as i read the district court's order the district courts first as i look at the collective bargaining agreement and i as i look at the bumping rights i simply don't find a material issue of fact that would support her going to trial as to whether or not there was a breach and because she was on this issue i don't need to reach the other issue in the sense of the citing it but i'm not at all sure that the district judge didn't consider all the relevant issues already relevant evidence as to the first question what makes it to help what what what basis do you have to say that the district completely independent claims that can stand alone now i dollars that we could sue one or the other without bringing and both of them as to and we still have to approve the elements on both defendants to get what we need to know there are cases that they don't have to do that situations where what you believe with in terms of a preacher fair to your representation doesn't have anything to do with the company's violation of a collective bargaining agreement for instance if it's an error made renegotiation are rationale is that based on on that idea that this case could fall within that as an extension of the law that misses her was damaged by what the union failed to do even if we never reached the point of doing the company or winning against the company and getting those damages which would be her last benefit the term of benefits she was damaged by having to have to administratively litigate this for five years and spend time and money to a two enough in a position where she never got to argue the merits of the pretty well on here and then you can use that remaining time for a union are you going to split the argument we are your honor and i will take no more than ten minutes to address the claims pertaining to the rise and we thought that was a logical order because mr clyde granted his decision on that basis i would like to address two matters to  opinion about how quickly she could learn something that this is absolutely industry that she had never been working with all in and that has missed the boat there's no foundation for her to express this opinion about her ability to learn something that she's never somebody is probably in the best position of anybody to say i'm a quick learner i'm a dummy and she's saying i'm a quick learner but i think that's the quintessential personal knowledge she may be wrong but i'm not sure you can strike know admitted no familiarity with one full day form for another one of the programs a plaintiff admitted no familiarity with whatsoever that is the horizon program the employee information  and it is her conclusory of you know about something that she admittedly does not know anything about that is these particular programs you may know quite a bit about g t d arisan but she doesn't know anything about them so on any other if is not i mean there's just no reference reference for the record i do want to talk briefly about the question of breach you know i noticed an oral argument for the first time council has advanced an argument about what the ambiguity of this contract is that we have not seen in everything before and that is some notion that there is an ambiguity in fourteen that i have that do of the collective bargaining agreement between its first position will be provided with refresher training and i heard a couple of times people lapse into formal training that is not the language of the country it is a refresher training refresher by its terms means something you've done already and have refresher training o something for which you need initial training the language down below about four weeks is after the fact that is after someone has been permitted to fall yet within four weeks they don't demonstrate proficiency they are laid off and they have no further bumping right so it is confusing apples and oranges to talk about the process at the beginning of the pumping process when you are permitted to about the intent about combining classifications and i submit that has it backwards of course we don't talk about intent until you find ambiguity in a contract and there is no enduring you know the evidence for you is that these parties you go sheeted hard to for the first time incorporate in this contract language that had been taken from another g t e collective bargaining agreement along with the i b e w that the language was very clear had been explained to the parties are going to have been the subject of several arbitrations explaining me to suggest therefore the ambiguity is that you know the language speaks for itself in that regard and you don't therefore get to offer intent language when the record paragraph five of her revised affidavit it's not the company's intention to combine job classifications to prevent bumps the undisputed evidence in the record for you is that the classification of the job at issue had certain tasks assigned to it because of the business reasons for this limo to a remote location in moscow idaho we needed people who could do a variety of things that's in the sully declaration par  his company already and the fact that she's been laid off and as it turns out was not allowed to buy a method she couldn't retire on that schedule does that mean she gets no pension whatsoever i'm not quite sure what that means so i know she still has a pension benefits they are by virtue of having lost the last few years of their employment at g t e i will concede really they might have been lessened because of course you view the length of your service impacts the amount of your pension but she still clearly is entitle to a pension their basic argument and this will also go to a question that you raised earlier the basic argument of the plaintiffs was that the union's actions were motivated by prescription nations specifically that she had not been the union too was not a union member at the time and they we lie to make that argument they rely on the evidence of a statement made by a darling theron's who is a local offices are fifteen years ago you asked when that statement was made fifteen years earlier where she said that we don't fight as hard for union a phenomenal members as we do for members it's that stray remark that they rely on to make this argument that the union that the international not the local the international the only union defendant in this case was motivated by this criminal action that representation in this case after the union international union representative of this made the determination after reviewing the bargaining history the training record talking to witnesses that he could not prevail she went to an eternal union appeals process and the union and its national convention decided to pursue this case now if they didn't have any zeal they would not have ever gone to the step of going to arbitration so i i do think that there was there was zero why did why they the most active and discrimination because she was a nine member the only evidence she has to support that is this is just a stray mark made fifteen years earlier by a local person there's no evidence of the international people involved in this case ever made s remarks and more importantly even know her membership status at any time and interestingly the person who made this remark fifteen years earlier growing firing was the same person who processed her grievance through the three steps and in the record at all to show that these two international people involved in this case were in any way discriminatory acting on discriminatory with this woman talking motive and making any that decision and you can't rely on a straight remark of a local officer fifteen years earlier to implicate an international union  because there's no evidence of the union instigated on powers that interesting lee she goes to the internal union appeals procedure which is for members she does that after the local  the international wrap rather drops the greek decides not to pursue the grievance she goes to the internal union appeals procedure for members if they would discriminating against her because she wasn't a member they wouldn't  understand it is if the judge decides on one element of a case and you find that the judge was correct on a different element so that the record doesn't support proving a different element of the case then you can dismiss on that basis this record here at least through in my brief not through the plaintiff's praised by the my briefs and the appendix they were going to raise the latches to answer the record is undisputed that the union was attorney was not notified until four days before the arbitration hearing of these watches the transfer in fact the union rabbi three different times  party the court weighed evidence judged credibility and tried fact the court used terms such as reaching a level self serving unpersuasive credibility those are our terms of court shouldn't be used to not support our argument in part was when evidence becoming th