decertification effort upon which the employer then realized with a recognition now under arrest of oh good night when that occurs the titian is per se tainted the principle here is that an employer can't rely on the fruits of its own is conduct in any degree this is a policy that is designed to exclude employers being active in the process of play self determination now the employer in this case addressing that we have three responses and this issue is probably before the court decision just as it was properly before the borchers of the general council there are three reasons for that the general and thirty you're going to find that the i'm sorry at age fifty you're going to find that the rule that requires raising these issues with or at the earlier levels is there because it court should have the benefit of the board's analysis when reviewing the administrative determination but here is the court has that the board of the majority and the dissent did  error what was wrong with what the a l j decided she looked and said that the the certification petition was being certified by her an impact on other people who signed that petition so what was the causal link so another excellent question and that question really goes to the very issue that is you know your honor because that issue answer as you're telling us ignore the facts we've got this doctrine that leads to a result we want and why should we ignore the fact you know it's not to ignore the facts it's just saying that what is not required is showing some causal link between the employer's actions in encouraging the decertification addition effort and finding that that had some impact on the employees during the process well if the education has a signature from a majority of the employees why should we dishonor that why shouldn't the employees a lot be allowed to accomplish the result they presumably wanted to accomplish because of the tank because all of the n l r b in what was a what was the taint if if if haynes isn't motivated by this and of the other employees aren't motivated by this what's the thing because the him because the and already has a policy that says we do not want employers interfering with the explanation it sounds to me like you want to sue and ignore the employee's signatures not because it actually had a factual impact but because you want to buy this this is your rd opportunity is there reason for us to ignore the employee signatures other than your effort to apply a doctrine i hear that argument but factually i don't see anything that explains why the employees signatures shouldn't be taken for what they were again in order to  journey during the gathering of titian signatures it employer promotes a leader of that effort the employer promotes the leader of that effort encouraging that effort that is the encouragement correct with respect to the with respect to the promotion issue our basic argument is that the board would never hold an actual discrimination at least not as that term is they found they never found who we should have hired if we supposedly should have hired somebody externally i would point out that why does it have to find you should have hired somebody when the company decided not to consider any of employees they look at both categories having looked at the st category not employees i don't think it's unreasonable or suspicious they would then decide hey the people that know the person who works this is a time to look a little suspicious limit the pulled of people they had previously decided weren't worth even interviewing and it's not like we're talking about we were there's no discussion as to why the person stopped showing up at work we're not talking about some ourselves to a pool that contains only people that we decided before worthy of an interview and that's an hard sell and they also found the rough corn sexploitation was the most credible was to why they she didn't get the promotion that she as she sol she didn't get if you've been denied the promotion she would have actually lost the facts of this case she got the remote and right i'm saying that if it had occurred the other way if in fact  they had refused to interview her it was like a pretty elaborate way to avoid talking about the facts of the case as we have them you're trying to tell us the board is biased in a context where in fact the board on the what seems to be the bigger issue ruled in your favor i don't really understand the point of the argument isn't connected up all this in that i don't see the boy that well i'm not sure i can do better than i have your hours now move on from that point i don't i think my point was that there is no actual discrimination which is a legal element of the quieting another great let me ask you what are the consequences are there consequences for your client was a result of