you correct while his focus on work very well get right to the heart because that's the crux of this case we submit to the court that the determination here by the hail j and openly adopted by the board completely misconstrued know that that's fair although i would submit to the court that in understanding the e mail it has to be placed in context in the context is what occurred during those discussions that day so they have the conversation he makes it clear as he had throughout the preceding body that there would be no change in the position everything would remain the same there would be a quote three is the email then comes that afternoon and then the final use of the able to be adopted but this is the basis for the entirety of their inquiring in the finding that there was some confusion with regard to the author of the e mail which is at j s sixty four is undisputed the company was paying twenty thousand dollars per month in medical contributions to the union which accepted those monies and then utilize them for a union control insurance plan at this time spending twenty thousand dollars i'm on your offer of september third proposed to increase our health care contribution to thirty five thousand dollars a month we will not do that but what we will do will pay the continued amount of twenty and all that was happening here epstein in the company were suggesting to the union that if you go outside your own captive plant there are ways you can take the twenty thousand dollars that we will continue to pay  plans that might have worked better oh so this new mail does nothing more at this point think confirm the conversation thirtieth that the union had rejected this concept of taking the twenty thousand per month that there is that there is not substantial evidence to support that finding that's the standard of review as i understand it and so the substantial evidence this is the e mail we can read the e mail and i don't think this quarter anyone is bound by an interpretation of the email that may be made by someone else says we're sure we don't do that do you know we will have to see whether or that the company had proposed to get a raise there was no dispute from the testimony on the record that when they discussed this after the offer came in they knew exactly what the position was they read the understood it they never saw a clarification is certainly known to the height of clarity the a l j why is that but that i was snip to the or here is not substantial evidence in the record to support that because contemporaneously absolutely no ambiguity based upon the admissions of the union from their internal discussion otherwise as to what that email meant and there had never been a change from the company from not from september thirteenth onward and then of course a  week later when there were further discussions and even made clear they getting rejected on november ninth with respect to the the further proposal that was made even after the lockout again and i see my time is up  further the board credited the testimony of union representatives conning ham intricately that they were indeed confused by what exactly the company was offering this was made manifest in earlier in the day on october thirtieth when epstein raised this issue  the union state that it was going to take the company's offer to its members and have a vote this being the first truckload heard of this he asked the student vote on what it was unclear at that point there's credited testimony there's been no showing that that that credibility finding should be overturned or that the company can meet the hard bargain overturn now the company's offer on october thirtieth stands in very stark contrast to the first clear offer that it made to the union which was on november nin one week after the on off a lockout the board found that that was the first time a clear offer was made and a review of that document at j one twenty three illustrates precisely what the company is obligated to provide to the union which is clear terms of what  being offered this varies substantially from what had been discussed throughout the month of october and vary from what was in that october thirtieth e mail and it was this that was put the union and its members on notice of what type of proposal they would need to exact in order to avert the lockout and fortunately for the company this offer came too late to move it was or it was not able to cure or off the lockout with just this notice it was obligated to return the employees to the status quo by reinstating them paying them back or bring them back to work and in a lockout paying them back pay and resuming negotiations the company had every opportunity at that point to resume the lockout had it done those things but it did not  so the board maintains that the record is that the site the company's best efforts throughout its briefs in its argument to show that ads this october thirty e mail was clearly it was anything bought and substantial evidence supports that  the parties continued negotiations movie that strong of a turn to continue discussing the matter on nov ninth the company provided this what it termed a final offer to the union laying out these term so that is something that can union can take to its members and vote on a new clear manner in order to avert the lockout had it been given in advance of the lockout but it was it was the first time the employees but i'm clear notice as the board found of what  this she doesn't like you know why don't we get contrast there to her thirtieth e mail it shows and it tells the employees what type of health benefits they would be voting on it tells them what they would be paying for it how the division of those contributions were being made and all know it at the end of this to show that this was indeed a moving target the company was her buying there is for the first time a discussion of the ability to withdraw from the unions pension fund so this is it in illustration of what is what the board found was a clear notice to the union whereas in october on october thirtieth again inconsistent confusing this is credited testimony of union representatives and is supported by a you know a reading of this of this e mail mentions saying with the same plan but it also mentions the possibility of eliminating family coverage that's not a freeze from what happened in the past that's a a reduction in the benefits that were offered to the employees if this is this is  to be getting under this plan will they be getting four hundred dollars a month for the employee what type of benefits are going to they will they receive under the insurance plan all know that there's many this there are many discussions about a one year freeze this offer discusses a one year freeze on w wonder two year reason wages doesn't say anything about unions other various contract proposals those were on a dress the company would have to score i believe and further that that the freeze would extended to those other terms but that's not the s itself discusses the wages so at that point to suggest that the union members would have known what they were voting on in order to avert a lockout  minute left i would just briefly address the issue of there are many there's been a great deal of argument in the briefs although not at this morning about whether or not it should be deferred but portion of this he should have been deferred to the board's well established compliance proceeding on the issue of whether that november nine email not only the the unlawful taint created by this bias on the walkout but whether or not there was an adverse impact on ongoing bargaining the company has the opportunity to meet a burden of showing that there was no adverse impact by the nature of the unlawful lockout and if that's the case that it sure would and the company's liability and the company's going to great lengths to suggest company obligation to raise this matter before the board it failed to do so it was on notice from the elegies decision mr lodge of his decision but that there was no such finding that it met its burden to the extent that there was any you know uncertainty about when the company was obligated to raise this uncertainty was dissolved when the board stated in its but no to its decision that no further with litigation was warranted in this case because the matter not been properly raised the company then continued to sit on it is quote and what if any response from the rest of us moving to that answer mark sam once again you don't understand i just want to keep everything the say i don't want to pay anything more i don't want to you know i want to keep everything the same for one year that position never changed they knew it on october thirty and the october thirty email confirms that it says exactly that years of freeze in place there was no ambiguity these facts were well known and there was never any question about it so with regard to the october thirty in there when we look at it in the context of the admissions in the record which were disregarded and ignored by the a believe the conclusion of this court should be that there was no ambiguity concerning the position that the union knew what to do to avert the lockout which was simply same terms and conditions that existed under the agreement as was made point