because the florida area in several regards fundamentally unjust results first i would like to start by addressing the board's contention that in this very different case the p c m see case is dispositive here client's liability here essentially think you just said this is flows from the u s p s of the respective employers ye violation however and the success or the successorship issue turns on whether the old bargaining unit rationale and the gist of your gist of your argument is that the key difference he difference between this case and our last one is those are those are you will piece by it what you say is a different company takes assumes all the liabilities of the predecessor company well i don't know about corporate law but i'm going to go back to early decision boards and precedent which says that the unit has to remain appropriate the kind that you all can use are committed so here that's july two thousand and thirteen that's when he retired mechanics and the question needs to be what is the union appropriate in july of two thousand and thirteen the were hold your whole position rises or falls with the proposition that that principle should not be extended to a situation where the ul peas are with brings me back to what i what i would have thought is a pretty basic background principle which is i'm an acquirer in company no i bought my company i assume all of the legal liabilities of the company that i purchased and if one of those liabilities is being on the hook for on remedy view well peace well that's part of what i've seen respectfully  was no longer going to have that subcontract in not review and then p you each took the work in house in directly employed these mechanics along with the entire other out of your workforce of hundreds of clerks and  should have to ignore the unfair labor practices of the predecessor of p a a wage so one of one of those unfair labor practices was this unit union security clause so the fact that the employees remember i o w you can be attributed to that unlawful labor practice regardless of whether p a weights cause the practice or not it's the circumstances that occurred in between you say they were changes in between but the board says that the critical point here is that there were unfair labor practices which affected the employee's choice of union and which union was in control of the time and whether they are attributed to pierre weight or not the words as they're not attributed to that's not their fault they are this court another panel to which we are bound said so so it doesn't matter whether went back and forth the point is that there were unfair labor practices and they were the kind of unfair labor practices like human security cause which make it very very difficult to change the that's to think that any change in the bargain and practices made a difference and those are there are no matter who is responsible for them in marketing history as you just and that i would they were responsible for the unfair labor practices during this period because they accepted recognition when they shouldn't have so i don't regard even if we take the position that put in evidence the battery i think the answer is that it's certainly at least a minimal with regard to the individuals who were members of the out of you prior to two thousand and five that cannot be second start that was actually held in the p c n c case when it was ordered that those individuals did not have to in the normal circumstance your the argument just made is that the employees are entitled to make different choices about the book their their union and their bargain unit i don't see why it's different whether the employer or th successor it's a feeling it's a circular sort of issue here and i think that's what we're trying to argue is that by not looking at the facts and circumstances as they were in july two thousand and thirteen the board was unable to do a proper brains analysis the war should have looked at that information and those facts in the board's brief claim that they didn't do that but and they say to certain things that the general counsel put in his evidence but that just goes to show that if you're going to look at facts and say that you're doing an analysis post  would be to brush aside the rights of the employees the members of the historical unit to decide which union they will choose to have them to represent them and that's why we're here right now  was like p c m c in that respect true your honor and the rationale heart of the rationale of those cases is that an employer should not be able to benefit from its own misconduct that's correct and if that's the key rationale than that principle wouldn't necessarily extend that legitimate union is i am not you well it may or may not be right that question depends in part on evidence that the board didn't consider because they said as a legal matter this is irrelevant because it involves flows from on remedy he's right  ok well it's not about that there you're right there is no clear case on point on that issue however there are two cases that we rely on in our brief proxy communications and in the in the read very very which which was not the rationale beloved but even if i give you that those the most those cases say is that the successor corporation can be charged with the un remedy you l p s of the predecessor corporation of th have a good faith doubt as to the majority status of the of the created the previous you know the unique the right for you i am in this case because it is aware of the unfairly  the governing principle as proxy communications and therefore the relevant question is whether p a a h knew about p c m season remedy he will keys when they made all these decisions and then address that question but they did well actually no your honor the board couldn't have done that because those are two separate issues the first is whether ph is a successor employer and there's no there's no issue of knowledge of whether unfair labor practices happened before that comes into that now has the the defense went of whether there are a successor employer under burns right turns on whether the bargaining unit is still the right one correct but it does not turn on whether the but that's an objective analysis it is not turned on whether that's how we answer the judge has as i said there are new cases governing proxy is one that i would direct the court to that is sufficiently says the similar that i think the reasoning in proxy would apply here in proxy you had a the units majority status the board said you can't do that in this case you know that because because you have no or because you know what happens because because of the faith because the faith by definition involves under review you know the rationale of the water because like i said proxy proxy doesn't directly govern this case the rational of the border here is that you have a six a birth successorship a successor employer that sits in the shoes of its predecessor and simply because this is there is now a new employer in time has gone by that does not mean that the rights of the employees who back in two thousand and five were forcibly switched from one union they had chosen to another that they had not chosen at doesn't mean just because there's a successor employer that those rights just go out because of and including a particular thing in security because why that part of it or is that oh certainly the the the the the reason we spend so much time on successorship in this case is because if peter which was not the burn successor then he could recognise whatever unit wanted and al the view would not be violating any any law by accepting recognition so that's why employees that in law that you did not represent in fact it new fleet at the time that it did not represent them so yes actually you're on the the the the missing link is the succession because if deal which was agreed and we were poor then we could recognise any union and the view would not be on the hook but absolutely if i'll give you had not of its own free will accept it your wages recognition we wouldn't be hearing would not be any connection you're right  about march i read march thirty first two thousand and five through june july first two thousand and thirteen and that seems much more a fait accompli and brushing aside eight and a half years and changes in development seems to be much more troubling when you look at the policies and purposes of the act and i wanted to point out that as the board has said that whether or not the union is appropriate is an objective analysis that you placed in the record was rejected so we go with what the board says all the evidence i'll give you you attempted to present needs to be playing to the record it should be important to note that the general counsel at trial never even identify who exactly was in the union things that are very important to determine whether a unit remains appropriate in july two thousand and thirteen the word i use the proxy communications act line of cases for the in good faith doubt as to the majority or majority of support within a unit is separate and apart and different issue defense than whether or not the unit remained appropriate on that day the recognition