contract is leaking to the pictures provided that e p a governs what work the union is entitled to do there is no language there cannot be any language in the in start contract that would resolve that heard for wanting the contract was that to determine is whether they were there witnesses were observing was an intentional act toward occasional one well here safeway to admitted that the work that is to cart was doing was actually the work they were doing there's no denying it there was no question as to whether it was an intentional arc or it wasn't and regardless of whether it was an intentional act is he a does not change the remedy available to the union based on whether it is to cart was before performing work intentionally or unintentionally the rd reason the union provided for wanting things to her contract was for the purposes of remedy again the remedy would be determined by the terms of the c d a there is nothing in the insta card contract that could in fact what remedy is available to the union here  judge perez question is completed contract says the witnesses saw what they saw now here we don't know exactly precisely what these witnesses saw because union has never offered testimony or declarations from those witnesses but regardless  contract with instant card relevant to determining if there is a violation that's why i have trouble i would understand your argument if you see if your argument was the c b a clearly exempts this from any union exclusivities or doesn't cover that then you might be able to say the contract with bins to court is irrelevant but if there is an argument that this c v a does cover it isn't the unit employees by indicating that instagram workers are asking safeway employees really the agreement that it had with safeway to validate alcohol purchases so taking all this evidence personally have used it but as i understand it is they do go shopping there is grocery stores and and and for  between the union and safeway however again whatever insta card is i don't think you know what it is that is the carts and shoppers into stores but safeway as acknowledge that it has a specific relationship and agreement in stake here at stake here is ultimately whether the ball that at stake here is simply whether the union as shown a reasonable basis than the probability that the requested employees in connection with an ever control safeway and may or may not have over the over there seems to work workers when they're shopping in a safe telling safeway employers that they were the ones that had to balance a purchase based on the agreement safeway had with insta car so yet all the union is trying to surmise here and to figure out is what is that what exactly is that relationship between into the car and safeway and again very reasonably trying to determine whether at the end of the day the insta card agreement that safeway as carried its minimal burden of demonstrating a probability that the extra car contract would be relevant in carrying out its statutory duties processing and handling the grievance at issue  all merchandise that people purchase and they and they and people can gauge the safeway through their website and have people who are safeway employees get the merchandise for them and said   that asif way she use it service to have people from safeway select the groceries for them and so the issue is whether safeway specific arrangement with insta card is violating undermining that agreement which in which safeway has its own unionized employees do that work so again it's not it's not saying that a typical customer can select their own groceries it's that this work maybe being taken away  the level of determination of a standard review as this court held in san diego newspaper guild the board's determination as to whether or not a piece of evidence is relevant  given case is given great weight by the courts either because it is a finding of fact which is conclusive is supported by substantial evidence or because it's a mix question one fact which is within the particular expertise of the board here  there is no reason to overturn the board's termination particularly given broad discovery type standard liberal standard given to determinations of relevance in this context  problem that is the problem that potentially will be investigated that safeway entered into a contract with instead cart is that the problem like when this safeway have to have a contract with insta card for instance to card to actually shop and save way steward's well it's it's an interesting question it's kind are concerned about that is well as the precise question that the council want them to answer in a particular case so so is is that the problem is that safeway is contracting with a stick card so if the insta card just contracted with the person under quarantine and didn't have a contract with safeway and went into safeway store hours and bill the person you're conceding that the language of this he reads broadly this will be a determination and an issue before the arbitrator at strikingly i'd like to speak to the fact that the union and the board are introducing new reasons for