i'm trying to figure out where does it say that any of them spoke what the employers actually now my worry my worry counsel is this ok when i read your complaint and i put all your allegations here together and i can find that the union may have learned she was working finding the work in my book that's not enough how do you respond well you're on it i think that yes your only response to suit in terms of dates and times was specifically alleged every one of these  was about the employments and her loss of work which specific about what she was told and how that changed were specific about the fact that this occurred after the union would have learned of her so that strikes me on with respect to your concerns that that's creates a very standard circumstantial case that that this and haven't with lost her work because of the union's actions this is a case the question for the court is multiple actions we have multiple events we have a consistent pattern and we all want we have consistent actions of hostility toward service now it seems to me at that point that unless the court is going to say we have to plead case you have to promised work and then a day or two later you would maybe work a day and then all of a sudden the promised work would disappear after the unions learns of her employment those are the allegations that in return those there's a pattern and practice those states the kind of evidence i think i submit the court off to be allowed as a plausible claim otherwise the court is going to be considered to asian where where that where no matter what the power of the circumstantial evidence or circumstantial case can be proven how can we similar to what we have we do have to some of those allegations we can't say for example what what they said to a particular employer if we were part of that conversation we could allege the general reasons why an employer would listen to aware of each one of these positions well i think that it's a reasonable inference that we're contract requires something that the contract is complied with in the absence of some evidence contrary but we can certainly alleged in each case the employer complied with their obligations and after  it is i believe in peril it is in paragraph fifty three everything is a buyout they would have learned because they had all the gaijin to report they would have observed working as such employment by their agents or persons associated with them and how the unions with  i mean i think the important i think the important question was judge rawlinson this question if we were to say ok jad you should know if you should never be dismissed ish you should have given this guy a chance to amend again because we don't think there's enough of it's not meant to get there was never an opportunity to amend even when i i stand corrected you are right we would have alleged we would have a leg specifically for example on the wrinkle in time that they would have received information deployments prior to the time that they left let her go but are we can only make such an allegation on information and belief because obviously we're not privy to that communication they don't so the copy of that they don't send a copy of their communication decisions you brought against a rd party when no facts are pleaded to connect the rd party to the employer decision maker when but for causation as opposed to mixed motive is required on appeal it's already been noted that there is multiple deficiencies noted by the district court to a possible claim and all we've heard about the amendments is some aspect of what notice would union may have received now ascending reports of hundreds of productions through union doesn't mean that the union receives it and doesn't mean that any calls or any kind of outreach heard by the union and we've also heard that they but but just a minute purchased a minute when i get this complaint in the non the d j and i have to give it the benefit of the doubt and give it honest is that it is true and you are in total in total control of everything that would say what would be in the circumstances such that they would give you discovery to don't know whether the you really got those or whether you didn't otherwise they have no way to do it how better can they put it well we have other precedents i mean the other precedents for a but for causation generally involve a for causation in this situation we're left to say in this particular case that every one of those who made if you will an explanation of why she did not keep  appointment that they were faults that they were just covering for the union and this is the only way that you could get to this is by saying you would have learned of this you wouldn't know what they are and these people would have been anxious not to make the union mad and therefore this is what happened and that's what they've alleged yes it's highly speculative but that  speculative only because they get only a legit and we have to give them we have to give them deference in what they allege and if they could do some discovery they would be able to go to the employers they would be able to go to you we have to be oblivious to the fact that a union and an employer might want to do a favor through the union and now now if you if there had been an answer and if they were the discovery the the union the lawyer could have said no and it's the day we hire employment a competitive freelance industry it's not a you know a public sector job where you have a property interest in continued employment with a just cause provision to support it this is repeatedly tried to schedule me for was not able to do so and so therefore put be put in writing the rationale for our motion including the fact that there wasn't a possibility  causation between the employer independent players decisions and the union and there was no made no choice they elected not to amend the complaint went to that notice there also wasn't i'm not you understand those are the added allegations serious now so they'll make you understand that cal sure yes i understand i've read the briefs and i understand that's what they were doing and i believe that based on the rationale as judge suspicion that we would just be here again and years because that's not sufficient that doesn't overcome the deficiency if employers were indeed lying about the costume job availability is that it was more possible that they well that they talk generally but there's not a specific person on each side of the conversation and and public has relied on park versus post that were in that case there was a telephone conversation and while they each party  fantasy ferret out all the information for the party that's bottom line well so you're saying don't send it back with the about the man you better concentrate on they make a play on the complaint as it is and if the complaint is isn't enough then you better just reverse their offense where you're go on what  you're telling me now your honor i mean i still don't see how what there is is but for well i understand i understand but if i believe that they given the been given the every benefit of the doubt to the plaintiffs that judge he's not going to do it anyway then if that point i just will say well then we'll reverse and let's let's go for summary judgment let says let's let this union give us a little answer once and maybe a little discovery sure i didn't mean to say that i know how a judge would wear rule in the future or that i can get into the minds of anyone all i meant to say is that i can understand that it's not an abuse of discretion for him you'll be you'll lose your job and then the next day one of the people on the other slate that was a demonstrator shows up and he's twenty years off work and it's also in the construction industry where the carpenter where there's hiring halls and so unions are more involved in the hiring process they're there at the union is saying they're going to do this and i think like that here the union has never claimed to know to say that they're going to end their of employment there's no allegation that that there is a connection and that the idea that just because at some point at the end of all of this and the member of seventeen someone who knew that she had been working generally doesn't support this idea that that you know that there was this level of knowledge of a daily higher relationship and the union is so on top of it to go in and so it's it's fair to say that based on the rationale and it's well in fact it wasn't in use of discretion to find you know when you still don't have any kind of specific allegations that this union is in a relationship with industry that would have bent such that they would have carried favor to get the employers to conspire with them too high to fire someone for a basis that could have opened them