order is the n l r b prohibited from mine proceeding to decide that the injunction is not directed to the national labor relations board but the injunction that freezes h and a from implementing the resolution passed by its house delegates creating the collective bargaining arm and that has had the effect of freezing he n l r b from acting i mean that's that's between you and you know larby isn't it well if they want to go ahead and  decide representational issue they can they can do so and doesn't judge gilmore's orders civically says nothing stops them from doing that well and unfortunately it has because the district court has reiterated that it doesn't feel says they can but they say they can't and they have exclusive jurisdiction to determine representing militias that cannot be resolved until the n r be asked and the employers for health care facilities are faced with the situation that attention which was filed for the purpose of the siding who the collective bargaining agent as they heard evidence that's before them and they feel what i think some justification that that they don't want to certify and i think that has an injunction hang with it they have then there's only five unfair labor practice that it would be before the board and the board is frozen as i understand it all they have the right not to but they don't they don't have to decline to bargain with them in my right about that they don't have to but then unfair that as long as the future existence of c c d is threatened it won't rule in other words there's this cloud hanging over the their head and they don't want to say that for example that there's this injunction shelve  and in fact now i recall it was filed after the n l r b indicated at the regional office level that it was unable to rule on the petitions and then sends an order out that there's no you can't it worries and then she sent an order out th and the employers appealed i don't i don't particularly agree with that either but that's what they did and they have been recession tory prerogative to decide it's their decision the courts can't make it there are cases where this court deals with the issue of are problems with with an injunction if the injunction hadn't been issued this would never have happened and b of the employees who voted both c d o houses back in october to create this new entity wouldn't have been are not registered nurses are not permitted to be members of the h any and therefore were barred from voting on this organizational change and let me straighten out what i around a union is affiliating with a large organization or a large organization merges it or takes it into trusteeship an employer files the kitchen saying there's been a change and we no longer have to bargain because we're it the organizational change spar there is a change in the organization whether or not the n l r b recognizes the new formulation a new organization certified involves different question taken deals with the organization as the n l r b finds when the n r a is presented with an organizational change it raises a question of a different organization they have their own framework is tied whether there can be a change in naming which is more ministerial insensitive or whether there's a different organization that's not before you that wasn't before judge gilmore what was absolutely abolishing the b b you know what leave no opportunity for cvo to continue its collective bargaining agent the anwar be would be required to take those circumstances as they found them and that is perhaps why the n l r b decided to wait on resolution of the first issue let's suppose in this case people wanted an organizational change to take collective bargaining authority away from h b o he essence of the proposed the only one remaining is the issue of whether there's a tiny percentage of the nursed represented people who are not our anderson not members of the bargain you know that could easily be remedied by an order saying put them in as