you can call me out proceed i do want to mention that justice radius is the third piano member on this case and he will be fully participating in the decision but he is unavailable today so we have the we will have the tape recording everything everything we hear from the lawyers today so when they ask now if there's three  defendant party have an opportunity to present all like mint which this court agreed to and of course we would but i would like to suggest before we begin that i'm going to allow thirty minutes per side now thirty minutes reach defendant thirty minutes precise and each defendant will have approximately ten minutes to present that i don't know if you've already overlapping and also i would request that the parties defendant in for the weekend consider whether or not if this person has standing under the two thousand seven agreement all right all their issues would remain as far as the circuit court so keep that in mind and with that we're going to begin with with one of the arguments in which you indicate that mr hampton was not represented by the  and doesn't that also provide it specifically that retiree employees are not employees under this bargaining agreement  it didn't really go through each odd inch of that and it's complaints and say anything about a failure to plead or was it really based entirely on his conclusion that since he couldn't play that possibly action under th two thousand and seven agreement that he would never be able to plead the cause of action yes but you know i don't you know he wasn't pleading under the two thousand and seven on january first said so that's some of the but really more a matter of whether or not i'm worried first two thousand sat whether he was either an employee he was no longer represented by finding unit he had no one to represent him he couldn't challenge this through the typical grievance process because he was no longer an employee he and seven plan which is an interesting thing because it didn't exist in january first two thousand and seven and  the retired employees under that case against a december thirty first three wounded in in the class won and they had standing to challenge the two thousand who retired after january first two thousand second did not have standing to challenge the two thousand and seven agreement because they were gradually senate i eight bargaining  honestly i believe it's somewhere between twenty and forty and i don't know so there were a number of people who are retired and you worry first two thousand and seven yes your honor ok now my question again going back to this is whether or not starting cannot vote on proposed collective bargaining agreements and cannot participate in abbott's reachin proceedings between the transit unions and the c t a to determine collecting in the collective bargaining agent for all its employees following expiration of that agreement however williams and class one retirees were in the old longer employed by the c t a and were not represented in effective date of his settlement is critical but in addition to the standing argument your honor even if you say that we're really not convinced that he was represented by the union even though the union represented for all that record negotiated for all employees between january first two thousand and seven in december thirty first two thousand and eleven that's who they were bargaining with work regardless of when that agreement was executed it will all respect the effective date of the parties and apply it so what is this but is this statement made by the man whose boy because retirees are not represented in collective bargaining they get a standing to pursue claims for forcing the benefits granted under c p a they say several cases and they're is talking about retirees the general principle that when you are retired you're not represented in collective bargaining there's the general principle your honor but any before into this is what you're saying yet they affirm the your first question was if we find standing is over and we submit that it's not because the triumvirate also dismissed the claims under two six one five sure and then you correctly applying matthews matthews looked at the two thousand and four c that you did say that this didn't apply but i want to ask you one more time the contract the two thousand or the two thousand and seven i think this is a fairly standard provision in all of the collective bargaining with the authority and was classified by the authority and it's important roles as a full time employee so first of all the plan defines employees ok it's in the record sheet for three but then it says it is  intended to include barney requests temporary employees as defined by the board of trustees and retired employees are not included ok so what is it well that sin is actually continues or not is it does it provide except  that a person who retires before the effective date of a collective bargaining agreement is not represented and you have a case that you want to cite to date for that now be at principle you're saying that that's our position will wait until it may be your position but did you cite a single case that references the language that you're now using is there a single case the supreme court referred to or that you referred to in your briefs that now is redefining the term of what a retired employee is and that retired employees don't have collective bargaining agreements they don't have the union representing them is there any case that says retired that day he was actually an employee he made a bet i mean i think that's your position so if we interpret the language of me abuse the way you're interpreting it i think your position would have some strength so i understand now you're saying he really didn't retire and in reverse he was still working but then somehow that day he retired even though he was an employee that day your honor it's all fiction this is all pursuant to the settlement agreement clear from the other parties because i think your position is very clear that on the first of january his status was actually an employee who retired and that's just the standing issue but it's clear to you that he did not retire on december thirty day i mean but either he was a retired employee or he was and now everyone is saying he was in a transition he was working he was employed but he somehow some some point in the day he suddenly became retired he i think  twenty of step it seems to be the line of thought here it's not me any grief but now a days before the position was the if he retired january first but now it's a position you're taking different that he was suddenly an employee who had some point transitioned into a the purposes of this appeal that you are contending he's a public employee i'm first in addition the act allows public employees to bargain collectively through representatives of their own fusing time questions wages hours and other conditions of employment accordingly individuals who are not public employees do not have the right like to bargaining a union has no obligation to represent retirees who are outside the collective bargaining unit and they say the case will bring that retirees are not employees covered by the collective bargaining agreement because retirees are not represented collective bargaining they have standing to pursue claims for enforcement of benefits granted under the c v s so are you saying this was or was not part of the court's reasoning why those employees w start ok then she goes on to say the trial judge agreed having considered the date set by eric in his original point but then she says this only deals with the first date for some twenty five years lost and when they began their employment they were promised that they would not have to pay for those health care benefits when they retire ok so here's an employee he worked for the c t a twenty five plus years and as of the end of december thirty first two thousand and six all those individuals that had come before him would now have to pay for the health benefits that were incorporated in the two thousand and seven bargaining unit why would any individual in their right mind ever agree to after they've worked for twenty eight years and and have been promised that their health benefits will not be diminished why would they suddenly agree to retire the following day or bet new next year so that they will then if your position is you say to paragraph forty nine the union is under no obligation to represent the interests of retirees it may choose to do so i'll give the retirees agreed to such representation so there's two possible with on the one side the union which has no obligation to do so and generally doesn't represent retirees op they would have to choose to represent him and two he would have to agree to such a representation s on this issue alone is there any question of material fact as to whether or not that what in this record would ever said yes i haven't finished my question what i would suggest that mr hampton ever agreed to representation language if if a plaintiff retired before december thirty first two thousand and six they get standing and then they could have said if the current employee or retire retired employee retired or a after january first step back i mean that would be different language would have a whole new meaning but that's not the language they use so anyway i understand your position you wish t it has generated a lot of litigation but one of the for one of the ways to solve some of these problems is to require that employees to begin contributing to their health op once they're retiring and then there are other provisions it require that they suddenly take more of a percentage of their in income to help offset the benefits that they're going to be paid later so there's all sorts of things that are in play for this case is really about you know i think whether he response to the health care trust  execute that you know they can call that but you couldn't do any of the things you were supposed to including during the health care trust because it didn't exist on january first isn't that just another sign of the if he was retiring or he is going to do the man whose decision he retired we is not represented by right they can't they don't have any other way to challenge the treatment because they weren't an employee but now there's an argument that this agreement appeal the other thing i would point out they kept talking about him choosing to retire then i'm he was forced to retire that as part of the settlement of his grievance with and i don't really think that's an issue here in order to no longer be an employee starting on january first two thousand all right do you have any other questions now i think anyone all right thank you very much we will take it under advisement and the court is