clear evidence or preponderous of the evidence or overwhelming evidence what is the standard by which we look at the board's findings it's back to fact finding substantial evidence substantial that's that is the five that is the standard since universe of cameron reviewing four decisions ok substantial evidence in the record that the reasons were sifting and implausible first of all here it's here we know who takes over as the manager of this department says he couldn't see any reason why he could've done it simply as an employee of the hospital losing their job and nothing was happening to them they were doing but i still find the hospital agreed to pay for health care benefits for a period of time until i was picked up so it's understandable that this is a very expensive and understandable why this would be highly impossible to take action it's very expensive to solve a very singular problem which is to find a manager for the department the next point is that miss you testifies and gives the shifting reason she says you know we've had all the t managers and she says nothing wrong with managers we had they were very skillful they had years of experience like ray hancock by outsourcing the company would then provide the manager those by  clearly got it wrong because it was substantial evidence which the board's decision just wrong about and there's another issue with respect to that everyone agrees the judge found that the union's activity at this hospital increased in the middle of problems no doubt they recognize problems in this department and we know that in november eighteenth there's a meeting of the managers in which they say they testify they talk about some contracting and they still do some investigation but we know between have to when they make this decision to look into some contracting two days before christmas and why they don't have to meet with the employees the day after christmas it's actually the twenty seventh it's monday morning to an causes the storm and this is the timing issue you have to focus on the next three or four days because this e mail you know seven out of seven indicates that hancock who is in charge of partner is upset because he wasn't consulted about this decision  good afternoon my name is meredith chase and i represent the board in this case i'd like to give five minutes of my time to mr letter that represents the intervenor hospital in the case here the board's reasonably found that the hospitals in not violate the act by contracting the judge a lot on a number of different factors first the judge looked at the fact that there were there are absolutely no independent violations of the act alleged here no threats no unlawful interrogations the entire time the union was present at the hospital which was from ninety eight to the year two thousand that's very unusual and the judge had every reason to look closely at that in addition the judge looked at the fact actually took place during the critical period that yes it does raise you know a question and he knew that he had to look closely at the testimony and he did that he if you look at the conversation in july yes at that point they hancock you deny us and what hancock did night was making any of these alleged off the record comments he said i never said anything off the record anything that was that was suggested i get off of any similar remarks so any and hancock specifically denied that he never said i don't like unions unions are bad any of those comments have been specifically denied and credit and the and the union has given no basis to reverse those credibility findings and as you're aware it's a it's very difficult to to argue the credibility when you should be reversed when they've been made by the judge who witnessed in the way that they did it they had never before just subcontracted from manager the only time they have some contract in the past was when the three three times they subcontracted the entire department and it was a way to solve  problems in similarly sized departments that is how the hospital had done it in the past and disdained here they should have done it differently simply to ask you to give the unions business judgment for the companies and that's simply not in the board cannot cannot substitute its business judgment either and to say that they all yes they needed a new manager and they had every right to try to have a new manager and they but what you should have done was hire ted wiener as a manager in light of all the circumstances the lack of any animals the past practice the other evidence that they have considered this months before the petition was filed and that they had announced it to the employees before the petition was in part was filed and in fact set forth a timeframe at that point and so if we go through with this it will be within thirty to sixty days and they said that's the employee's december twenty seventh before the petition was filed and so the judge yesterday looked at the actual timing of the subcontracting but to his credit he looked very closely at the evidence here and he weighed it and in the end he found that well they knew that the union hoped to file for the last and they didn't know what unit it was going to be in and they certainly didn't know when and there's no evidence  did testify in court on the evidence that it did increase activity but the finding by the judge was that there was not in a noticeable increase in you know activity that the union had been nosing around for two thought it was going to be that even in the hospital but it sort of was and ten to fifteen that you know thirty to sixty days doesn't suggest that this is an emergency you know something that they are frantically trying to put into place as the right and was discussed again in november on the nineteenth of one thousand nine hundred ninety on december twentieth one thousand nine hundred ninety and finally in a meeting with the ultimate decision maker william parentally president of the hospital on december twenty hundred ninety nine in that meeting it was indicated by ms hill the vice president human resources at the time that there was never a good time to make an announcement to the department with regard to the prospect and investigation of cell contracting there was concern that the rest respiratory care was a small community that word would leak out and it was imperative to make a prompt announcement which led to an announcement being made very shortly after the christmas holiday the as the counsel for the board has indicated the business judgment that was exercise is not shown to be anything other than lawful as far as the evidence in the record is concerned as so found by the minister in large measure and has affirmed by the board as far as the timing issue is concerned the as counsel for the board indicated this record thoroughly and was very concerned about whether or not there was any independent allegation with regard to on lawful motivation in fact in excerpts of the record page fifty eight you not only asked her once he asked for twice and in both instances in his pomerantz answered the question no he was pomeranz was also asked in that same colloquy whether or not it was the general counsel's position with respect to remedy in this case to be seeking something broader than an order against st vincent medical center by virtue of asserting there was a responsibility on the part of the vendor for prepare aren't catholic health care we t for whatever reason the general counsel elected to contend and the response that is given on page fifty nine of the excerpts of record by ms pomerantz is no we are not seeking a remedy against the corporate parent raised this issue in an additional citation to the board of a decision having issued i point out to the board what is in the record that the general counsel never had an intention of pursuing anything about a court against a corporate entity west or whether that now the daughters of charity health system and if counsel for the petitioner truly believes there is a further remedy to be sought that is an issue to be taken up with the board and not with of animist v i've already pointed out that the general counsel admitted that there was no in the independent and in one scene pursued i would also point out there's nothing in the record of the proceedings indicating that the general counsel ever moved to a d to assert an independent violation of a warrant i agree with what counsel for the board had said with regard to the examination by the administrative law judge of mr hancock when he testified made a credibility finding that he credited mr hancock's adamant denials of that testimony by mr moore the board affirmed that ruling and indicated in its book note under the standard distance either from the hollywood freeway which would be to its north almost directly to its north and it also would be quite a distance from the harbor freeway in the downtown which would be immediately to its east or on of the respiratory care department he was told he could meet the deadline of february fifteenth fact we did was he said early in january i can do this but i need more time because i have a small company i can personally take over management in thirty days which would matter asserted schedule but i can't take over the employment relationship for sixty days and the reason the february fifteenth they wouldn't need the dotted line was because they had to get these people