intentional conduct are preempted by the labor management relations act second is whether the summary judgment by the district court was proper whether the labor magic relation act applies at all in this case and whether the court's decision to deny plaintiff motion to amend to conform with the evidence was proper focusing on the salt and battery that a lot defines assault and battery as a crying and the conduct must be looked at in order to determine whether the port rose to the level of a criminal action law settle that a person cannot contract their what their rights away from being a victim of a crime in this case the defendants want you to believe that the law provides that a person must address the criminal acts as part of a mediation or arbitration the labor management relations act in section one eighty five does not grant parties to a collective bargaining agreement the ability to contract for what is illegal under state law and what is your argument claim under state law that's right and so answer a judge means or question what your best caves i don't understand the question his question to you was what is your best case on your side as far as however in this case the issues are that that the conduct was so egregious that it rises to the level that is outside of the c v eight and we believe that romero does not apply then he wouldn't you what about our order to show cause if you had a chance to read it and to respond to it i have your honor we did file an amended petition and i apologize for what you did did you respond to the u i guess nobody wants anybody to know anything about think all those cases we know about it so it's fine ok thank you counsel let's hear from the other side court ruled that all claims arising from these facts were preempted by section three or one of the labor management relations act what was the alleged wrongful conduct here the alleged wrongful conduct with circus circus security guards they approached mr alter might williams who was standing on a chair leading chants no contract no work things of that nature asked him to get down as he as they approach the housekeepers locked arms and they wouldn't allow the security guards to get mr williams and the disturbance was increasing the security guards directed the employees to leave the employee dining room some of them did some of them didn't the complaint i've seen a resistance security guards trying to restore order by escorting mr williams employees about for union business article four section four zero two establishing additional standards for conduct for union stewards article twenty three section twenty three a one employer's right to manage article twenty three  try to manage why i manage the workplace to manage work and these some of these plates were working some of them were had come in for the meeting and some of them were working on their lunch break the collective bargaining agreement provides in one section i'd have to find out that when they were on break they're still on employer's time you know even though they're how are you going to use describe for us how would you use the c b s to justify what the guards did well then the question is to be did the guards respond reasonably to the situation they have an obligation to maintain order and the employer has a right to maintain order in the workplace and on the property now when they're swinging billy clubs and  a that's not my factual scenario that would be our defense to the case i mean the facts are i think what i said i already agreed to there is about how much force was used and wasn't reasonable now you know much is been said here about was there a criminal case here and there's nothing in the record that you know the police recommend this case for prosecution or anything happen like that the police's response just as we believe it should be in the civil law is this was a union matter and this was employees pushing about a union contract and this was the employer through its agents responding and whether they responded reasonably or not should be governed by the collective bargaining agreement additionally on of their w there's a grievance control sheet there's a grievance that she and it goes on from this word also who filed a grievance correspondence back and forth and then most importantly eighty seven on the with whether such questions arise in the context of a suit for breach of contract when in a suit alleging liability and tort questions relating to the parties to a labor agreement agreed what the legal consequences were intended to flow from the breach of that agreement must be resolved by retaliatory discharge case for workers compensation claim i believe it was something on the fringe it wasn't something now happening in the workplace that caused it and immediate response or immediate attention by someone and the rule that permitted an the labor contract in the first instance so am i correct in saying you're going to be arguing on your side is going to be arguing that what your guard did was justified under the c v a absolutely your honor and we also work into our argument trespass statute under nevada which allows if there's disruption on our property in the hotel i don't  approach asked people to leave tried to calm down defuse the situation and i will force says refusal to failure to follow or failure to follow instructions as a violation of your obligations as an employee disregard a violation of rules policy or procedures causing a disturbance on the present premises interfering with the conduct of other employees and doing their job all of these things were going on this was a matter that had to do with contract negotiations whether it was an organized union of them which you know if you're aware that the record or whether it's just something that happened to mr williams walked in and two hundred housekeepers happen to be there and they all started chanting spontaneously it was my client's right comment on the applicability of the gal this case to the issues in this case thank you i will certainly do that publish in order that affect anything further yes i would like to go back to the remaining question your honor because i've got to tell y up abused by the the tactics of the employer the nevada statute that was pointed out by counsel the rest of that statute says that it must be reasonable force to remove anybody that would be correct however the the reasonableness of the methods for breaking up this meeting is in question and outside of the c v s the and the c b a come into play in the resolution of this case in order for if their facts are touching no longer becomes a battery and so their position is that not is that this was perfectly appropriate because we were breaking up something that the c b a allowed us to break up and was prohibited by this your honor however in this case your battle  that it must be reasonable here this is the the facts here make this an independent with that that's the end point but i mean i think you're missing that the c b a becomes intimately involved in the resolution of this issue i don't agree  simply because the reasonableness of it cannot be dictated by the c p a certainly that's that's right you're saying the end result but the point is the c v a is what's going to be at play here they're going to be arguing the c v a certainly even th we'll be able to stop them from arguing the c p a in justification but the basis of our argument would be that even as a public policy issue getting need in the back and breaking arms is not  if you look at the c b a section twenty one a one which is their arbitrator their requirement of the arbitration of any matters between employees and employers the c b i defines a grievance as a dispute a difference of opinion between the union and employers involving means interpretation and application of employees covered by the agreement this is not a disagreement of opinion this is a torque this is a violation o