the alleged interrogation of nerviest in the tellus by the vital supervisor when she asked him how he intended to vote in the upcoming you know election the second is the terminations of four unit for employees either for sleeping or for their pro union  stand the entire and interaction between the telus and the supervisor as described by the tellus was just two lines of dialogue on each side which where are you going to vote i'm voting for the union you know if the union wins supervisor the first is you know which way you're going to vote and he readily acknowledges he's going to vote for the union the second half is the claim that the statement that if you take a portion of your paycheck mattel says i'm not worried about that that's the end of the direction  the finding of interrogation naturally falls on the first half of that interaction but to support that they relied on the second half of the interaction which was the statement that  disparity in the position between the two folks that setting the whole conti's so what can you addressed that issue that the larger context sure and i think the context supports a finding this was not an interrogation the fact that he did readily admitted it is one of the factors that they look at in context and other is the fact he was wearing this lanyard the board of course makes much of the fact that these folks were open and obvious what about what about it was a high ranking person in management who had not before did he knew she was a d s d and that's effectively all he knew so within those contexts the fact that he didn't know she was a high ranking supervisor really mitigates you know how the course of nature of that factor was that point valid by the l j that statement record evidence is very clear on that point so because of that we would argue that the interrogation finding falls away and that transition to the second one which is the cannot be as a matter of law because they are protected first amendment speech and arguments now made by law correct or are we that aren't was not made from the after the board having said that it is a protected first amendment right to be protected from credibility findings they are well supported and and well explained and notwithstanding what you characterize as being plains where you would agree that's loose language i would agree that she take credit portions of course and let her testimony she she did rely on particularly that she looked at the clock at three fifty am and that she didn't act witness to employees with their eyes closed but in large part the portions of her testimony that she credit that work are operated by other testimony for example testimony of the four employees and it's briefing about a claims of this photo is the type of documentary evidence that would be something that particularly considering that the time stamp on the photo appeared several months after the decision to terminate the employees turning next to the station one employee  terminated it was well set up subtle board law that the discipline of a neutral or even an anti union employee to cover up discriminatory discriminatory conduct against union supporters also violates the act nevada again concedes that initial showing of unlawful motivation and here it cannot meet its affirmative defense of showing that had it would have issued the same discipline for this employee notwithstanding the activity of the four employees in a fight it doesn't even mention this email in the record which is clear documentary evidence that it would not matter it's affirmative defense in this e mail which is from its counsel and the counsel states that the employee on station one is a bit of a different story because her sleeping was tolerated by her charge nurse another of the last goes on to say that to counsel the employer that they should not consider any lesser discipline this question in particular is uniquely coercive the board guards the secrecy of the voting booth and and protects protects its employees rights to their secret ballot election this wasn't the only thing that the court considered but it did find the nature of the question to be troubling the supervisor did not offer any assurances against reprisal for his admitting that he was going to vote for the union and and didn't explain why it was asking this type of question and i know counsel says that the employee didn't know who the this person was who was interrogating him but he testified that the employer has a five that it was the d s d and testify that it was a person named gay and then it was and then the employee went on to testify as to what the d s t dead what what her job duties were so it's clear that the employee knew this was a high level supervisor  and as for the employees argument that the subsequent the subsequent comment you know the you can take part of your paycheck can't be considered as we argue in our brief they never raised that before the board with no reason to think that too much would be coerced her outspoken proponent for the union understood what was going on with the union vote no reason think that was this the language of of the l j rejecting testimony completely and i would argue it's more than just loose language that actually violates the duty to consider the record as a whole and to really see that you have to compare w testimony picked out what she thought was credible discard what she thought was incredible and then still relied on the testimony with respect to gilman she found certain consistencies in disregard of the right and the testimony as a whole and for that reason we don't think which part of the testimony as a whole was transparently lying about how long it took that might be justified also to not believe her testimony about all of them sleeping certainly i think it would have been within the ale jay threshing to say the testimony she's obviously lying for you know to violate the n r a and because of that i'm just regarding her testimony entirely that's not what what what they said oh she said i think she missed estimates this time you know he think that necessarily plausible is not usually the word you use when you say that somebody just was sorry i want that but she first says it only takes five minutes to get through all the to contradict the objects testimony and yet she still made no factual findings on the rodriguez germany so i do think the algae went beyond just choosing one version of events over the others even when there was undisputed evidence she's still here disregard this person is just not believed with respect to matters of consequence the testimony has consistently exaggerated it's not worthy i'm not going to quit so to the extent of the employer needs this testimony  because not a believable witness i think that's all she's saying i don't think that's noteworthy i think it happens all the time you have someone who gets on the stand the a l j says this is really quite amazing everything that's coming out of this