the morning ya know and think thank you for an opportunity for coming and speaking on behalf of my brother mars i've been following this case when it began back in two thousand and twelve when he was released in a laid off from his job and he's going through all of the process in the appeal so and now that we're here i was sitting back in the audience and i heard quite a few interesting cases and i did this every hear you say something about contracts and based on these contract up we agreed to is agreed to in good faith by both parties and in this case i strongly believe that and the layoff of mars  company nor the local union provided mr mcallister first of all under his seniority a layoff article they didn't provide him with a letter as a reason why he was laid off also under his discipline discharge he should receive some kind of notice as a reason why the was this charging him from his position or at the same time about a week or two later after mr macao scott laid off because they said the reason why he would lay not because that position was no longer needed they allow someone else to continue to do his job they're going to claim that they've offered mr mcallister another position but his position that they were offering him was under a time entirely a different classifications mr mcallister was working as a porter and a position that they was trying to offer him was a garage driver's attend and of course they didn't give an ample amount of time to even go and get his license so he wouldn't have been able to qualify for that with your three did not have a driver's license well at the time i believe he did not have a driver's license because under down there and there was someone doing not only just driving walking the cars they were also performing the work as a water so if that position was laid off or was no longer needed then for ten years you should be able to work for seniority so in the event of a layoff if someone at another location just started that job thirty days forty five days there should have been an opportunity for mr mcallister say hey look there's got to be a bumping process here because i've earned my right to be employed why should i be laid off and someone is coming and brand new with the company and continue to have them we have feel that there's injustice i just feel though an injustice to one worker as an injustice to all workers thank you  over the the the contract at stuyvesant town garage it eliminated the position of porter and offered mr mcallister the opportunity to assume the position of parking attendant which would have paid more money mr mcallister did not have a license when we took his deposition a couple years back he didn't have a license still i don't know whether he has one to this  day under the collective bargaining agreement and this is in reference to the claim that mr mcallister went back to the garage afterwards and sewer parking attendants performing quarter duties under the terms of the collective bargaining the job duties of a parking attendant the contract did not have any specific job duty description for porters however parking attendant in addition to the obvious of parking the cars with customers bring them in  it also says that parking attendant job may also include cleaning parking facilities whether by hand or mechanical equipment or replacing light bulbs there are minor maintenance and we're talking about the collective bargaining agreement interesting leave though this collective bargain agreement was not with quick park which was the successor employer it was with company imperial parking which had been the predecessor lawyer under th well just to sum up as the district court's decision is clear there is absolutely no evidence of any discrimination in this case based upon race there's absolutely no evidence in this case of discrimination discharge was motivated by age in fact the individuals at the appellate identify as being younger than him were actually older than him in addition your honors there was a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the also was presented with no evidence that the discharge was motivated by race in addition tasca guerrero who was hispanic two of the individuals identified by the appellant were haitian  so in some your honour's we don't see that there was any evidence submitted that determination was motive for motivated by age or race and there was a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the discharge and therefore the district court's no if you carefully listen to the testimony i believe that the testimony is slowly based on the question of whether it was age or race or discrimination i believe in this they have not spoken at all about the terms of the agreement and with the two parties came to protect not only the loco but the employee itself and in this case the employee  whether the company decides under their right under our to code a right to lay people off they have that right to do that but it's still the bill of rights of an employee to go to a grievance with seizure here in this case it seems as though is that the company and the local not providing any notification any information as to the reason and all why they laid mr mcallister off they did not talk about his attendance they did not talk about his performance they between impartial parking us a and a local nine one seven dated july first two thousand and ten to two thousand and thirteen because mr mcallister was never afforded an opportunity to sit down and speak his case or either get represented fairly and fully by is represented so this is really the brunt of the case and not the eighty's or race or discrimination it's about what they did unfairly and unjustly to a worker who devoted his life fifteen years to this company i just don't believe that no one should be treated in this way and we understand the reserve decision that completes a calendar for the day i'll ask the clerk