calendar month is not a lot of time for a union member to decide whether to complain to the partner labor about his own unions election but in deference to the autonomy  union that's all the statute permits now in this case contrary to about fifty years of guidance from the department of labor the union wants to effectively  longstanding guidance and it undermines the goal of free and fair elections for labor unions now the district court in the case recognise that the case turned on the which which loom very large before that this recorder addressed the situation in which there was a debate between the union and the apartment of labor over the unions internal process democracy and it would maintain a national consistency on this issue and in terms of that can mean some of the union and i have to say that the department of labor is not just solely concerned with the union members it's concerned with the unions as well but as we said in our brief that specter of being convenienced the unions is really just that the union is in control of how it how it communicates with its members and there are all kinds of means for very quick communication in this day and age and certainly the union had mean has means to verify if a member receives the situation and in this very case contrary to remember fax the complaint to the union on january thirteenth now the union says that the members time expired on january ninth four days before the member got the fax the complaint the department here has brought up a couple points that were not really in front of the district court one of those points the first point means free feels with the question of whether the word of painting has any relevance at all in the case notwithstanding the fact that the whole debate before the district court was about the meaning of the painting that's the way that this record ro was the the the argument that the union had not stated i mean the i'm sorry the department of labor had not stated the claim on the relief could be granted the union's motion to dismiss has to conclude that the complaint states probable cause to believe that there's a violation and that the the violation may have adversely affected the election and so this is a case where the apartment made that judgment and decided to go forward and disprove or to advance the complaint that was submitted by the member and so what we're here for if the court doesn't have any questions good morning or may please the court hi i'm michael anderson representing the postal police officers association the department of labor says that it's on fear that the statutory period the one month run at a time that the complaining incumbent president who lost the election did not in fact receive the union's denial of his internal repeal will congress was aware of that problem of non receipt and that's why when an outline to possible events that trigger the running of the one month it's a bit it's runs either one from the point at which the member has exhausted the remedies available and that occurred on friday december ninth or two who has invoked such available remedies with out of attaining a final decision within three calendar months after their invocation and such a person may file a complaint with the secretary within one calendar month government is correct bit of taint it means the actual receipt of the whether that is signing off on it congress intended the one more to run from the expiration of three months with out of tainting such a final decision in this case scott murray filed his unit of jackson's on september twelfth two thousand and one and eleven on december twelfth two thousand and eleven three months had elapsed at that point his one both to file under forty to eighty two began to run and it will be called this is designed that non receipt rule means that completely new members are not at the mercy of the postal service they don't have to monitor their unions mail rooms it has nothing to do with when they actually do receive if they want to know what their deadline is under forty two into all they have to do is calculate three months from the date they filed the initial objections and then add one more of from the expiration of that three month period so easily you think it was one day one day one day in other words on monday december business days and the calendar month calculation is council admits doesn't take into account holidays are thirty one days or twenty days and i cited the merryweather vs city of memphis case but discussed as the operation of that rule the court should consider the congressional policy behind title four which is to limit the limitations period as tightly as possible it's only one month which he counsel admits is not a lot of time it reflects the congressional objective in quoting from the supreme court's dunlop vs but chelsea case not to permit individuals to block or did away resolutions of post election disputes but rather to settle as quickly as practicable but cloud on the incumbents titles to if the members do not really buy the union or can obtain a decision from the union one way or the other within three months he may complain to the secretary since time is of the essence no complaint me entertained which is far more than one runs from when a member has invoked such remedies without obtaining a final decision within three calendar months and that's not just the legislative history that i read it's also discussed in this court's martin decision where it's interpreted  that means that the one month begins to run after three months of non receipt have elapsed so in other words if he filed the you know into a will into a complaint on september twelfth on december construction of the limitations when really you say he had actual numbers of the glued he signed for the letter on wednesday december fourteenth and that he didn't have any notice of it before but we don't have any record of that in the complaint and we have to we're basing that on the complaint that's right but if i could go ahead none of this goes to the discovery rule problem there are a lot of federal statutes including legal wall we are given statute of limitations does not begin to run until you need a member of the worker has no this is the issue for instance in a duty if your representation case that's not the case for elmore he election challenges and this court dealt with that issue in the purpose of the rule here that the person who is affected the union member who is a factor that as a complainant gets noticed it m notice requirements are normal normally for the purpose of having a person who is adversely affected or has a grievance to get information not to serve the union's purpose but the notice is to serve the purpose whoever is agreed about right and that was and that was the department of labor's arguments in prof versus operating engineers that this court rejected what happened in broad vs operating engineers was that in the course of the investigation of some election complaints the department of labor came across other violations which had not been alleged in a timely objection and the department of labor said well we can still proceed on this because the member didn't have notice of those other violations and this court ruled that there is no discovery rule in title four  statute for the benefit of the union not the person who's agree well what i'm saying is that congress gave members already if they don't get notice to be able to file within one month after three months of elapsed wedge here is that the vice president by total used email addresses which were in the union's files this is not a conversion of the unions property because the elmore v a guarantees all candidates incumbents and dissidents nothing illegal about any candidate using the e mail addresses of the union because they're entitled to that as a matter of statute and if the court has no further questions i thank you for your time here because we're trying to  opening motion to dismiss had to take in face value the allegation that scott murray was merely a member in good standing and it was only in the later materials that they filed the minute that he was in fact the incumbent president  what do you say that is way off point here on the merits i take it of the department of labor thank you there is more than just the right absolute absolutely your honor and that line that he's drawing between officers and members that's that's not rooted in the language of the statute as we know the we bought the the certainly under the statute the union is obliged to maintain a list of names and regular conventional addresses of members and thirty days before an election union member has a right to a candidate has a right to inspect that and to look at that list and compare it with the lists that he or she might have the statute goes on to say that  other lists that that there have that those have to be administered when they nondiscriminatory basis it doesn't talk about members can't versus officers and then as i said it was this guy was the president investigation of the pardon and showed that that the vice president went around and canvassed union members and came up with this e mail list which he then put on his own personal computer and the allegation is that the not have access to that list that was then used in the campaign and the department concluded that there was probable cause to think that that use of that list may have which is the