one of them could have been restrained or coerced by the union's objective lee false march two thousand and fourteen billing letter which demanded payment of as much as twelve hundred dollars in back to use that no non member actually as member mcfarren wrote the board majority failed to distinguish the board's prior decisions in promoting the valley and lead on any legally sound who aren't obligated to pay it and restraint meaning to stop somebody from making their free choice about how they're going to get here what they should i was trying to find him for decisions or case law helpful definitions  understanding the scope of coercion or restraining this context was another context coercion were the very very strong word but in this case it's still a strong word but we also have this if any reasonable employee could read it that way in which seems  valley and the case that we site that hasn't been discussed the nuff in the briefs is called central telephone i view central telephone in which the board said you don't need a threat you don't need to tell someone you're going to be fired if you don't pay this money just making a demand for money that you have no obligation to pay that is illegal and here that's not an ordinary this is a or letter just a letter will decide with my heart request a demand mistaken letter that says complete mistake just goes to one employee by mistake one non choir member of my nonmember fair representation member by mistake well i think and says it says that it was a mistake doesn't mean that the reader the employee whose rights are protected and don't forget your honor this whole national labor relations act is about protecting employee ease from employers and unions it's not about protecting unions from employees so the fact that in your hypothetical the letter was a mistake wouldn't change the fact that when i as an employee get a demand well i mean you've got to ask you've got to set it up because those are all working is pretty strong in its terms and then they sent a request from the employer and the employer did not did up until we employer realized oh a mistake and then the interesting thing is i got to argue it when the unions from both sides for you and that is what timeframe do we use for determining whether the imp colors and that is because sometimes you say it's the four corners of the refute no no no the fact that actual garnishments were may afterwards but we can't look four days later and say they apologize for it so i'm trying to understand is it sixty something dollars you know that's a mistake this is terrible this is horrible they're taking my money i'm clearly not being able to exercise my rights they just made me pay money i don't know so now they feel like their rights have been violated and then they get the is no that's what case are you citing for for which proposition all parties i believe agree that you look at the general context to find what an objective employee would have believed what my answer to judge millette is whether you look at the four corners of this ladder when you say i kind of ask you when the generally doesn't apply when i well in this case it was only a week  there's no general beyond that you've got to stay within this framework and i put your argument was they demanded money for a period when they could not demand money that's correct is the end of my army you shouldn't be talking about while generally this general or that want to write a case  possible general if you will and it's because they demanded money for a period with respect to which they had no right to demand money and it was clear that that's what they were demanding or for and they never apologized were and their employer realise it was a mistake but that period and that's it that's all we're talking here out of that that is why are going on here and i'm trying to respond to the questions the letter itself as in many of their prior cases whether it's promotion or valley or central telephone work or hospital the letter itself contains an illegal demand and in this case a very threatening illegal the pomona standard to clear this letter in the bloom group health case everyone knows that this area is for with ambiguity when a union says membership it could mean many different things this union security close required and you're not entitled to for the period for which that money was the man and not icing on the cake for them that some money was actually taking out you know even need that how do you get around this case well the case is essentially what what petitioners are arguing and how you're framing that the case law is that a demand alone is sufficient to to cause coercive miss and that's not simply not what the case all shows used to be something and i think this goes to judge what your point is what is the course of this the course of this speaks to doing something you don't have to that you have a section seven right to not do so the course of new speaks is linked to these union security clauses so you are coerced to paying you know money during a time period where you're not or because of the union security clause how do you not have that here in two respects on they didn't give these employees any choice they said and that they were taking the money out of your next paycheck and that same day it was like people could come forward and say hang on there's a mistake that same day they turned the paperwork into high up and said take it out so that seems to me at a minimum to have prevented them from exercising their rights for that two week period not to pay his dues to the union and secondly they said we're going to kick you out you're not going to be a member of him but membership is required for a job so those are my two though within the letter yes so i'm going to try to answer them in turn the first being the letter itself there's absolutely no mention of a contract in this letter as any demand being resulting from the contract it it's not that what they did was good just what you're proposing would be even worse to lie and say that the contract was in if it wasn't in effect and the employer has already given notice i don't charge use anything so that's the that's the main point so the violation occurs when you're making them to me and linking it to a contract in which you're not you do not have an obligation of the man i'm sorry how could they make that the make you don't tell me this is the making will here it's right i mean he didn't it was a mistake no no that's that's what sure i want in the worst way for us to believe and i might have at least waiver if the unions response had been we meant to say was well you know if you really want to be a part of the operate that's not so that's not an apology we made a mistake that was like oh we got caught and that would be relevant if the of clickable legal standard the union state of mind mattered here were looking at what employees reasonably in the petitioners shoes would if they would have a tendency to be coerced and one of the regional board of already again that i read to them that they should have been working the board the board says when you make a demand of got a letter from on something as said by the way you all have this and it's going to be out of your next paycheck have a nice day i'm going to be stressed out by people can't a lot of people can't live paycheck to paycheck i can sixty dollars missing out of paychecks that isn't that a real for when i need to go to your high bill pure in your demand please pay we don't have to go there because there was a threat here more than a fraud even worse with an implementation of force in the letter itself why isn't that what why isn't that enough to make it i'm sorry and i'm not sure i completely understand so your you say money will be missing from your next paycheck is it demeaning to collect money will be guessing from your next paycheck yes if someone walked up on the street with a gun and said money will be taken to take money out of your paycheck  terms of the face of the letter the letter does provide for the only option here and i see that my time is right make you continue is not the only option is not to have the the fees or the  must be made and i think that's where the the fact that the the consistory isn't similarly situated employees were not full dues paying members in they knew that they knew that everyone was on the same page so to and we've already told the employer play actually and i think over there i just briefly the time period that we're kind of looking at is not so much what happens after but when the employees receive the letter but it's it's crucial that these employees for years have asserted their right under section seven to not be for members we think think your employer yes you have built your employer's yes i'm demanding payment and i am collecting i take it right back i'm not waiting for you to mail me anything how is that what the board the board reasoned here is that would not be coercive because a reasonable employee in that situation would know that i would is not restrain from exercising their right not to pay this amount if they not restrain that would be a separate charge so the actual deduction could be could be a separate violation of the act which is not at issue here here we're talking about whether the the letter just the letter itself you're saying unions can't restrain people oh no oh i'm sorry i didn't mean to say that all the union restraining them by saying we're going to end this money and there is nothing you know about it you don't get the right not to pay me i'm getting it from your employer but i was intending to say is that it that could be that could be a legal theory of the case it is not here in the finding of the board make here is not dependent upon that and here with the board is that essentially what petitioners have to show is that it was arbitrary and on reasonable for the board to decide this the board reasonably relied upon the fact that for years everyone was on the same they would know that robert that as they would know that so just because of the fact that there's a mistake that was me maybe that's what you want or you know in the border you find that just to be clear i do want to be clear the border not fine that this was a mistake the board found the employee reasonable interpretation would be that if that was a mistake that everyone would know that this was was wrong and i see that my time is long expired i have a question you know unions i guess  letter of clarification one three so the union says you know what what we were referring to is what you would have to would pertain to i don't know the exact and the amounts differ so the nothing you had was for one particular person but i don't is this second subsequent letter also misleading as in order to become a member you've got to pay all these past use as opposed to saying hey if you want to become a member today start paying ok in order to become a full member you have to pay initiation to use so it doesn't necessarily start you know the moment in time where they want to be phone numbers i don't append on the unit and what its constitutional i was that's exactly correct but it internal procedures internal rules not the union security clause from the expired collective bargaining agreement or if i know your time is up but but how does our standard of review what we should hear well the standard of review is essentially when the board dismiss is a complaint the court should ridenhour i a petition for review is that just missile was reasonable and supported by the evidence and directly every one of the board cases when we talk about poor precedent every one of the board cases the cases cited by petitioners i believe the case that you referred to judge edwards there is a threat either implicit or explicit to enforce or you would in security obligation in most cases the union's communication explicitly tells employees that if they do not pay past dues they will be fired ever why i get that here's what i was reading all the materials in this case i couldn't understand why the board and you were saying the only threat here was loss of membership when i as a non labor law expert read that letter and saw you don't have a choice in this were taking money out of your paycheck and you no longer going to be a member and memberships required for your job well one to address them separately right now isn't one this is more than just  we've done the math you know this money this is a demand accompanied by a threat in the form or at least some restraint in the form of you may think you don't have a right to pay us but you're mistaken we're taking that money now i think there may be a misconception in terms of the part of that analysis that you just laid out petitioners knew and the law provides that they did not have to be members of the union in order to retain their jobs they had not been members of the union for years when they when they were just limited members in the terms of their pay and fair representation he's right which is not a membership at all it's the word membership is irrelevant to that there is a duty to pay the representational fee during the time that there's a contract with the in security obligations in effect but there is no membership and all this letter does and it's in for obviously an unfortunate letter in terms that the fact that it was sent to these to the petitioners but what the letter does is it tells them that if they do not clear their rear edge they will be suspended from their union membership the board quite reasonably analyze that letter with its within the text of that letter within the tied to the argument that you were trying for me that's a simple letter too right yemen attorney i've been in this area i know how to write that letter it would have taken one second and you're done and that's not what the union wrote and for me all it does certainly the petitioner's past experience of never having been coerced or threatened or anything i may never have had a demand for my wallet when i walk in the gate for twenty years it doesn't mean it's not course of when some union representative now does it i grant you if there had never been a threat for twenty years and on march thirty first the union had said pass this money or we'll have you fired under board law that would have been illegal me say that this in the no address that it's impossible to look at the facts that happened after without high it the employer only four days after the deduction was actually made if the deduction is of such importan coercive impact upon the employees and the board read the letter to your point and the board applied the statute statutory terms and looking within the context of the four corners that letter and you sixty dollars i'm only pain pain fair representation goes into work what's on the at farm leave all in the locker while he's working the employee unless the locker at the direction you know and you take sixty dollars out of the coerced in terms of losing their job not losing portions of their paycheck will not suffice yes or no that's correct if it's just the money and not related to any threat of violence or any threats of job would submit this if the if the standard of the panel should should apply means anything to defer to the board i there has been several decision makers look at this letter we've had the two to board members range of reaction i and i understand that neat legal analysis is not the same as nose counting but it is clearly within the mainstream to find that the letter did no more than it stated on its face which is to tell employees that if they did not clear very much there would be suspended from the union membership these employees are not ok no thanks very much at you tonight thank you very briefly first council is wrong the board cases say consistence consistently that you do not need threat tied to discharge you do not need a threat tied to an existing union security clause central telephone electrical workers do twenty nine and before sixty nine merely by quote notifying nonunion bargaining and employees that they would be required to pay union dues unquote that's the violation pomona valley the threat to collect dues and fees quote unquote that's the violation it's the of review for this court is the court has refused to enforce board orders that quote depart from president without reasoned analysis unquote manner care of the from two thousand and sixteen that