[00:00:00] Speaker 00:
You're planning to switch sides?

[00:00:02] Speaker 00:
Sit still.

[00:00:03] Speaker 00:
Sit still.

[00:00:06] Speaker 02:
What was that?

[00:00:07] Speaker 03:
I think the argument was to be combined.

[00:00:12] Speaker 02:
Oh, did we issue an order combining it?

[00:00:14] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:00:15] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:00:16] Speaker 03:
Search me.

[00:00:17] Speaker 02:
I don't remember issuing an order, but you know what?

[00:00:19] Speaker 02:
I'm good with that.

[00:00:20] Speaker 02:
See you all later.

[00:00:21] Speaker 02:
Thank you both for your arguments.

[00:00:22] Speaker 00:
We'll submit on the group.

[00:00:25] Speaker 02:
I'll accept that.

[00:00:26] Speaker 02:
You're OK with that too?

[00:00:27] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:00:28] Speaker 02:
Very good.

[00:00:29] Speaker 02:
Okay, let's move right along.

[00:00:32] Speaker 03:
That was the fastest argument I've ever heard.

[00:00:36] Speaker 02:
We'll be out.

[00:00:37] Speaker 02:
Okay, next case will be 2014-3123 Appleberry versus DHS.

[00:00:48] Speaker 00:
Can I just say that?

[00:01:16] Speaker 02:
Is it Mr. Schleicher?

[00:01:39] Speaker 02:
Schleicher?

[00:01:40] Speaker 02:
Mr. Schleicher, please proceed.

[00:01:46] Speaker 03:
May it please the court here on a challenge of an arbitrator's decision in a federal employee case.

[00:01:54] Speaker 03:
Fortunately, federal employee law can or at least should be simpler than patent law.

[00:02:03] Speaker 03:
Boiling this case down to five questions, it can be resolved.

[00:02:08] Speaker 03:
First, in a Chapter 43 case, must an arbitrator apply the same standards as the Merit Systems Protection Board?

[00:02:16] Speaker 03:
We know that it can.

[00:02:17] Speaker 03:
The Supreme Court said so in Cornelius v. not.

[00:02:21] Speaker 00:
Can I just focus on, I guess, what it seems to me that, at least to me, is the nub of this.

[00:02:28] Speaker 00:
This is not like Cornelius, where there's a different substantive standard being applied.

[00:02:33] Speaker 00:
And indeed, Cornelius says, quotes, was it 7121 or something, that says, when a matter goes to an arbitrator, and then there's language there about it being

[00:02:46] Speaker 00:
presented properly under the collective bargaining agreement, then the board standards under 7701C or something apply.

[00:02:58] Speaker 00:
But Cornelius was a matter in which the matter was presented properly to the arbitrator.

[00:03:05] Speaker 00:
The problem here is that it looks for all the world like this matter was not.

[00:03:14] Speaker 00:
presented properly.

[00:03:15] Speaker 00:
That is to say, there's a collective bargaining agreement that seems to say these procedures are exclusive.

[00:03:24] Speaker 00:
This 38A, which to me is the most important of the clauses that say, if you have a grievance, not one of the excluded ones, and we don't seem to have an excluded one, particularly about the PIP plan and the failure to live up to the PIP plan, here's how you have to challenge it.

[00:03:41] Speaker 00:
And you didn't complete that process, in which case that matter is over.

[00:03:48] Speaker 00:
Why?

[00:03:49] Speaker 00:
Where's the wiggle room out of that logic?

[00:03:53] Speaker 03:
The wiggle room is that we're seeking consistency between the arbitration forum and the MSPB.

[00:03:59] Speaker 03:
The MSPB would not even hear a challenge to a PIP.

[00:04:03] Speaker 03:
They would not hear a challenge to a PIP closeout letter.

[00:04:06] Speaker 03:
They would only hear the challenge to the removal.

[00:04:08] Speaker 03:
And then they would say, as part of this, we're automatically going to look at,

[00:04:12] Speaker 03:
whether the agency has demonstrated, whether it's carried this burden of proof on establishing that standards were valid, they were communicated.

[00:04:20] Speaker 02:
I don't see the government having opposed the argument you made that had this case been brought in the MSPB, all of these things would be fair game.

[00:04:32] Speaker 02:
I don't see them opposing that idea.

[00:04:36] Speaker 02:
But that's not where you chose to bring it.

[00:04:38] Speaker 02:
And there are lots of instances where different forums, administrative versus judicial versus other, have different scopes of authority in terms of what they can and cannot hear.

[00:04:49] Speaker 02:
You chose to bring this through the arbitration channel, through the grievance procedure, the removal.

[00:04:55] Speaker 02:
You had multiple choices of forum, but you chose this one.

[00:04:58] Speaker 02:
If Judge Toronto's reading is correct, how does

[00:05:05] Speaker 02:
I mean, I have to be honest, it's irrelevant what the MSPB could have heard.

[00:05:09] Speaker 02:
You didn't bring it there.

[00:05:10] Speaker 02:
How is it that you can bring it here under these circumstances?

[00:05:16] Speaker 03:
Again, we're aiming for consistency between the arbitration forum and MSPB.

[00:05:24] Speaker 02:
Why?

[00:05:25] Speaker 02:
Why?

[00:05:26] Speaker 02:
There are all kinds of things you can bring in the arbitration forum that you can't bring in the MSPB, like PIP, for example.

[00:05:34] Speaker 02:
shocking that there's something you could have brought in the MSPB that you can't bring in the arbitration forum?

[00:05:40] Speaker 03:
It's shocking because Chapter 43 Congress has specifically said, agencies will let you off with a lower burden of proof if you follow these standards, which the courts and MSPB have said.

[00:05:53] Speaker 03:
Even if nobody brings it up, even if none of the parties mentioned it ever, we have an obligation to determine if the standards are objective, if they're achievable,

[00:06:03] Speaker 03:
if the employee actually failed those standards.

[00:06:07] Speaker 02:
You had a chance to do that through the grievance procedure and the arbitration procedure, but you didn't pursue it.

[00:06:12] Speaker 02:
You filed a grievance and took it two or three levels up, but then didn't take it through to arbitration.

[00:06:18] Speaker 02:
You absolutely had the right to challenge all of that, but you didn't do it.

[00:06:24] Speaker 03:
And the collective bargaining agreement says that if something is not challenged all the way through to arbitration, it's deemed withdrawn.

[00:06:32] Speaker 03:
So it's as if those were never even filed.

[00:06:35] Speaker 03:
So then the question arises, must you, in an arbitration, file a separate grievance or go all the way to arbitration over the PIP and the PIP closeout letter, which would set up a different standard than MSPB?

[00:06:48] Speaker 03:
Cornelius talks about inconsistency.

[00:06:51] Speaker 03:
And I agree there are some differences in those forums.

[00:06:54] Speaker 03:
But they're not in areas where Congress, like in Chapter 75 or Chapter 43, has set very specific rules for how it's going to be handled.

[00:07:04] Speaker 03:
If they want to negotiate some different terms and procedures over the height of a water fountain or something like that, that may be allowable.

[00:07:16] Speaker 03:
But here we're talking about Congress giving specific rules about how it wants federal employees to be fired.

[00:07:22] Speaker 03:
So we have to disregard

[00:07:24] Speaker 03:
those rules if we're going to allow an arbitrator to say that you didn't separately.

[00:07:31] Speaker 00:
But Congress has not said that in a collective bargaining agreement, there cannot be procedural requirements, including timing requirements that Congress never specified.

[00:07:46] Speaker 00:
And what seems to be going on here is that as part of the deal of getting a lot more things

[00:07:54] Speaker 00:
to be reviewable, lots of non adverse actions and all kinds of things that could never go to the board.

[00:08:00] Speaker 00:
Um, you, there's a set of very specific procedural requirements, which, you know, with the right attentiveness, you can comply with 30 days or 35 days after the incident, you have to do this.

[00:08:12] Speaker 00:
And then if you lose, you go to the next step and you have to complete it.

[00:08:16] Speaker 00:
Um, I don't, I'm, I haven't seen anything in what you said that indicate

[00:08:22] Speaker 00:
that enforcing those plain requirements is contrary to the statute, or that there's something less than plain about them, either one.

[00:08:34] Speaker 00:
The less than plain being my wiggle room question.

[00:08:36] Speaker 00:
Is there some language in there that says, oh, here's an ambiguity, and then let's open up the ambiguity to say, well, as long as there's an ambiguity, then we're going to make it a lot more like the board.

[00:08:50] Speaker 03:
If there's ambiguity, I mean, the statement in the agreement is that it's withdrawn if it's not followed all the way through to arbitration.

[00:08:57] Speaker 03:
So we're treating this as if they had not arbitrated over the pay.

[00:09:01] Speaker 00:
And that's why I get back to 38A, which says this is exclusive, and then provisions that say when an incident occurs, you have the following amount of time to complain about it.

[00:09:11] Speaker 00:
So let's assume that you went a bit of the way and then you withdrew it.

[00:09:16] Speaker 00:
It's as if it never happened.

[00:09:18] Speaker 00:
Then we're back to violating the requirement that

[00:09:20] Speaker 00:
within 30, 35 days, you have to grieve about it.

[00:09:25] Speaker 00:
Either way, I don't see how it makes a difference.

[00:09:29] Speaker 03:
Well, if we look over at the DC Circuit, the DHSV FLRA case from 2014, they said using the, talking about the OIG, negotiating over the OIG rules, since Congress has set up OIG rules, the parties can't negotiate those

[00:09:50] Speaker 03:
They can't even negotiate them in the favor of the employee.

[00:09:52] Speaker 03:
They can't negotiate them in the favor of the agency.

[00:09:54] Speaker 03:
They cannot change those rules.

[00:09:57] Speaker 03:
And our position is that Chapter 43 is the same way.

[00:10:00] Speaker 03:
It says this is how you fire a federal employee for performance.

[00:10:05] Speaker 03:
And one of those things is the standards.

[00:10:07] Speaker 03:
That's automatically an issue, regardless of whether any party ever mentions it.

[00:10:12] Speaker 03:
So a party that goes to MSPB, it may not be mentioned.

[00:10:15] Speaker 03:
The judge still has to consider it.

[00:10:17] Speaker 03:
Under the proposition you're presenting, the party goes to the arbitrator.

[00:10:23] Speaker 03:
If they don't mention it, the arbitrator doesn't have to consider it.

[00:10:25] Speaker 03:
So that's a different approach to the law than is applied in the MSPB.

[00:10:32] Speaker 03:
Laying the arbitrator off without having to consider.

[00:10:34] Speaker 03:
I mean, the agency never had to comply with its burden of proof.

[00:10:41] Speaker 03:
It's obligated to show that standards were valid.

[00:10:44] Speaker 03:
It never had to do that.

[00:10:45] Speaker 03:
because it was not a separate arbitration of the PIP.

[00:10:49] Speaker 03:
And that's a different application of the law than would be in MSPB.

[00:11:02] Speaker 03:
It does not appear disputed that the arbitrator did not follow the same law as MSPB would follow.

[00:11:10] Speaker 03:
He refused to address the merits of the case, the merits of the standards,

[00:11:14] Speaker 03:
So the question is, is it excused by the contract language?

[00:11:17] Speaker 03:
The contract cannot apply different standards than federal law, such as Chapter 43.

[00:11:23] Speaker 03:
And as I just said, the parties cannot negotiate away federal law.

[00:11:27] Speaker 03:
They can't ignore Chapter 43.

[00:11:29] Speaker 03:
If it were some area where Congress was not as specific, certainly the collective bargaining agreement could fill in the gaps, but that's not what happened here.

[00:11:38] Speaker 03:
The next question would be what the remedy is.

[00:11:40] Speaker 03:
Since the merits were not addressed, this court,

[00:11:43] Speaker 03:
cannot do as it did in some cases and say, we're going to look at the standards and make the decision, is this a valid standard?

[00:11:48] Speaker 03:
It has to go back to the arbitrator.

[00:11:52] Speaker 03:
There's some cases that express concern about remanding to an arbitrator because it's not a judge.

[00:11:57] Speaker 03:
It's a sort of a part-time judge.

[00:11:59] Speaker 03:
But here the parties have stipulated that's what would happen.

[00:12:01] Speaker 03:
And you see in the arbitrator's decision, he says, if and when this case comes back to me, I'll do the following.

[00:12:08] Speaker 03:
So it's not in dispute that remand is an appropriate remedy.

[00:12:13] Speaker 03:
The arbitrator himself says at page four of the joint appendix, because the earlier things were not litigated all the way through to an arbitration, I've got to consider them as already decided.

[00:12:31] Speaker 03:
So the arbitrator is saying that failure to arbitrate those separately and independently barred him from considering the merits.

[00:12:41] Speaker 03:
This means that

[00:12:43] Speaker 03:
someone choosing between MSPB and the arbitrator is going to have to decide between do I want to arbitrate three things or do I want to go to MSPB where I never had to mention the PIP until I showed up at the door.

[00:12:57] Speaker 03:
And that's not consistent, that's not the consistency that the Supreme Court talked about in Cornelius.

[00:13:05] Speaker 03:
It also encourages the forum shopping because someone's going to

[00:13:10] Speaker 03:
have an advantage to go to MSPB where they don't have to have already arbitrated preliminary steps.

[00:13:16] Speaker 03:
While MSPB, if you went there and said, I'm here to challenge a PIP, they would not let you in the door.

[00:13:23] Speaker 02:
You're well into your rebuttal time.

[00:13:24] Speaker 02:
You're free to keep using it.

[00:13:25] Speaker 03:
All right.

[00:13:26] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:13:28] Speaker 02:
Ms.

[00:13:28] Speaker 02:
Wettbar?

[00:13:39] Speaker 01:
May I please support?

[00:13:40] Speaker 01:
Arbitration is a matter of contract.

[00:13:44] Speaker 01:
An arbitrator can only bind the parties on those issues which the party have agreed to submit to him as well as invoke to timely arbitration.

[00:13:53] Speaker 01:
Here the parties negotiated very specific timelines for the processing of grievances.

[00:14:00] Speaker 01:
Articles 38S, 39B, and 39K specifically set forth the timelines for initiating a grievance

[00:14:08] Speaker 01:
moving those grievances through the grievance process and invoking arbitration.

[00:14:12] Speaker 02:
Do you agree that had she brought her removal claim to the MSPB, all of these issues, the institution of the PIP, the standards by which she would measure would all be things that could be adjudicated at the MSPB level?

[00:14:30] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:14:32] Speaker 01:
The standards are the same, whether bringing a dispute over the removal of the MSPB or for an arbitrator.

[00:14:39] Speaker 01:
It's a substantial evidence standard.

[00:14:41] Speaker 01:
However, how those underlying actions are challenged, the sequence, the process is slightly different.

[00:14:47] Speaker 01:
At the MSPB, as Your Honor noted, everything is adjudicated at once.

[00:14:53] Speaker 01:
Council conceded that an employee cannot challenge a PIP, cannot challenge

[00:14:57] Speaker 01:
placement on the PIP, cannot challenge the standards individually.

[00:15:00] Speaker 02:
And all those things would be adjudicatable at the MSDB had she filed at the same, when she filed this removal arbitration, even though they had, some of the individual things had been subject to grievances which had been withdrawn?

[00:15:15] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:15:16] Speaker 01:
That was an option that was available to her.

[00:15:18] Speaker 01:
So when she was removed, she had the option of pursuing, invoking arbitration to the arbitrator,

[00:15:26] Speaker 01:
which would be a limited review because she had already grieved some of the underlying facts, or she could have proceeded to the MSPB, in which case the board would have examined the entire removal process at one time.

[00:15:38] Speaker 01:
So there's just a difference in the process by which these two bodies or these two forums work.

[00:15:44] Speaker 01:
One is they review all at once, and that's why it makes sense that- In a situation like this, why would Ms.

[00:15:49] Speaker 02:
Appleberry ever

[00:15:51] Speaker 02:
have sought to go through the grievance and arbitration route with regard to her removal, given that her claim from the very beginning has been the PIP and the standards of the PIP that she was subjected to.

[00:16:04] Speaker 02:
It makes no sense.

[00:16:05] Speaker 02:
Was it just poor judgment, bad lawyering, bad counsel by the union or whoever?

[00:16:09] Speaker 02:
I mean, can you think of any reason that it made any sense for her to go to arbitration given what were clearly the nature of her underlying arguments?

[00:16:20] Speaker 02:
given the government's position on what she can and can't actually bring in arbitration.

[00:16:24] Speaker 01:
I can, Your Honor.

[00:16:26] Speaker 01:
Arbitration through the grievance process is much more expedited.

[00:16:30] Speaker 01:
And she invoked those expedited procedures.

[00:16:33] Speaker 01:
So she was able to have an arbitrator look at her removal within about 30 days.

[00:16:38] Speaker 02:
Except that the arbitrator decided that he couldn't look at anything in her removal because all of the allegations

[00:16:46] Speaker 02:
that she wanted him to look at as part of the arbitration weren't within the purview of what he could look at because of the prior ability to arbitrate those.

[00:16:55] Speaker 01:
I think the invocation also demonstrates that she was raising some discrimination issues with respect to the removal.

[00:17:01] Speaker 01:
So I obviously don't know exactly what Mrs. Appleberry's intent was, but kind of reading the record together, I think her intent in challenging the removal was to litigate the discrimination issues which wouldn't necessarily be precluded at that stage.

[00:17:16] Speaker 00:
But your position would or would not be the same if this were simply essentially a lawyer's screw up?

[00:17:32] Speaker 01:
No, the timelines, whether it's a lawyer's screw up or the choice of the employee, those deadlines are set in the contract.

[00:17:44] Speaker 01:
I will say that they're not necessarily jurisdictional.

[00:17:47] Speaker 01:
They can be waived by the parties.

[00:17:50] Speaker 01:
I would assume they'd be subject to some sort of equitable tolling.

[00:17:55] Speaker 01:
So I suppose it's possible if Mrs. Appleberry said something to, if the parties agreed to extend the deadlines on some of these things, or there was some sort of reason why these deadlines should be extended, that might be something.

[00:18:07] Speaker 02:
You didn't seek equitable tolling or something?

[00:18:09] Speaker 02:
Did she seek a waiver from the government?

[00:18:11] Speaker 02:
She did not, Your Honor.

[00:18:12] Speaker 02:
Because the timing here is, and make sure I understand this right, because I could have it wrong, but my recollection of the timing is, she was grieving the closeout of the pip, and the removal came along.

[00:18:27] Speaker 02:
Then she decided to grieve the removal, and she stopped at that point pursuing the closeout of the pip.

[00:18:35] Speaker 02:
She had not given up and withdrawn the grievance of the pip until after the removal and,

[00:18:41] Speaker 02:
after she filed the grievance regarding the removal, which clearly on its face demonstrated her intent, because it's actually almost verbatim identical, the section where she complains about the PIP, the grievance, she was pursuing that grievance.

[00:18:57] Speaker 02:
And then she got removed, and so it looks to me like she flipped it, because she just cut and pasted all those arguments into the removal grievance, thinking that she was sort of umbrella-ing everything together in one grievance and not having all these separate little ones.

[00:19:12] Speaker 02:
Doesn't that seem like a really strong case for the government to agree under those circumstances to waive it and let it go forward?

[00:19:20] Speaker 02:
Because it seems pretty darn clear in this record, given the timing and the identity of the way the issues were presented, she could have kept pursuing that grievance.

[00:19:28] Speaker 02:
She'd already been removed, but she instead just sort of swept it all into what she thought was the removal grievance.

[00:19:36] Speaker 01:
I think your honor is correct on some of the facts.

[00:19:38] Speaker 01:
I think it is a complicated timeline.

[00:19:40] Speaker 01:
There are several grievances here.

[00:19:42] Speaker 00:
She dropped the grievance before the removal after the proposed removal.

[00:19:47] Speaker 00:
She dropped the grievance in the summer.

[00:19:49] Speaker 00:
It was proposed removal on June 27th, the same day as the closeout of the PIP.

[00:19:57] Speaker 00:
The removal was not actually decided on until October 31st, her deadline for pursuing the

[00:20:04] Speaker 00:
HIP grievance was sometime in the summer.

[00:20:06] Speaker 00:
She dropped it before there was actually a removal.

[00:20:10] Speaker 01:
I believe Your Honor has all the dates correct, but let me just sort of reiterate our understanding.

[00:20:15] Speaker 01:
There's three steps in the grievance.

[00:20:17] Speaker 01:
She had initiated step one.

[00:20:20] Speaker 01:
She received the denial.

[00:20:22] Speaker 01:
On the date she was proposed for removal, she filed her step two grievance.

[00:20:27] Speaker 01:
That was then denied.

[00:20:29] Speaker 01:
She continued with the step three grievance, which was denied.

[00:20:33] Speaker 01:
She had 30 days to invoke that arbitration.

[00:20:35] Speaker 01:
She did not.

[00:20:36] Speaker 01:
Then there's a period of time that passes.

[00:20:39] Speaker 01:
I won't pretend to know what she was doing.

[00:20:42] Speaker 01:
There's a period of time that passed, and then she invoked on the removal, and she attempted... When was she removed, I think is the critical thing.

[00:20:50] Speaker 00:
October 31st or 30th of 2013.

[00:20:53] Speaker 02:
Where was that?

[00:20:54] Speaker 02:
Was that after stage three and the withdrawal?

[00:20:57] Speaker 02:
Was that between two and three?

[00:20:59] Speaker 02:
Where was that?

[00:20:59] Speaker 01:
That was after stage three and after the period to invoke arbitration had passed.

[00:21:06] Speaker 00:
That ran on September 30th.

[00:21:08] Speaker 01:
That's correct, Your Honor.

[00:21:09] Speaker 00:
Can I ask you this question?

[00:21:11] Speaker 00:
Actually two relatively small things.

[00:21:15] Speaker 00:
The arbitrator said, and I don't know that this is relevant, but said that

[00:21:20] Speaker 00:
She could have grieved the proposed removal.

[00:21:23] Speaker 00:
That's one of the specific exclusions in the collective bargaining agreement.

[00:21:27] Speaker 00:
I don't think she could have.

[00:21:29] Speaker 01:
I think your honor is correct.

[00:21:31] Speaker 00:
I think that's 38C11.

[00:21:35] Speaker 00:
The other thing is this.

[00:21:36] Speaker 00:
On standard of review, you make a, I guess I'll call it an extended effort to invoke the deferential

[00:21:47] Speaker 00:
standard for reviewing interpretation of collective bargaining agreements that prevails in the private sphere.

[00:21:55] Speaker 00:
We said as recently as the Garcia case that the interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement is a question we reviewed de novo and didn't just make that up in Garcia, there are several earlier decisions.

[00:22:12] Speaker 00:
Which is it?

[00:22:13] Speaker 01:
We withdraw that argument, Your Honor.

[00:22:14] Speaker 01:
This Court reviews arbitrators' decisions to NOVA with no deference.

[00:22:23] Speaker 01:
If there are no further questions, we ask that this Court would affirm the decision of the arbitrator.

[00:22:29] Speaker 02:
Thank you very much.

[00:22:40] Speaker 03:
wanted to identify the point at which I came in on this case was that invocation of the arbitration as to the removal.

[00:22:48] Speaker 03:
So I'll accept blame for anything after that point.

[00:22:52] Speaker 03:
The Supreme Court in Penn Plaza in 2009 talked about whether rights were waived when you go to the arbitration form.

[00:23:03] Speaker 03:
And the reason it's acceptable to arbitrate federal rights is that we expect the same

[00:23:10] Speaker 00:
rules as to substance to apply both in arbitration and... Do you agree that a crucial dividing line here is between substance and process?

[00:23:23] Speaker 03:
Yes, I would say this is whether considering those standards, considering the PIP as part of the removal as a matter of procedure or substance is the key issue, yes.

[00:23:37] Speaker 03:
And so we look to MSPB decisions that say this right to challenge the validity of the standards is a substantive right and one of the most important aspects of the Chapter 43 arrangement for firing employees.

[00:23:56] Speaker 03:
If it were some other right, the outcome might be different.

[00:23:59] Speaker 03:
But again, this is one that has to be raised, sua sponte, even if no one else mentions it.

[00:24:06] Speaker 03:
If she had not filed any other grievances and had gone to the arbitrator, the arbitrator should have applied that same rule.

[00:24:15] Speaker 03:
And the arbitrator himself, in the case we cite in our reply brief, the Panama Canal case, quotes Cornelius, the arbitrator in a Chapter 43 case himself said, I've got to apply the same standards as with an MSPB arbitrator, or we're going to get inconsistency in forum shopping.

[00:24:34] Speaker 03:
Do you have any other questions?

[00:24:36] Speaker 02:
No, thanks Health Council for the argument.

[00:24:38] Speaker 02:
The case is taken under submission.

[00:24:39] Speaker 02:
Our next case for today is 2015-1229, Bernina International versus Candy Quilter.