a fair representation clearly the union has to represent fairly the interests of its casual members as well as this rule precluded the members of the union which mr sergeant clearly has from voting on matters always introverted and defined that as a term of art directly involved with the union has said it is seniority employees in members who can take on responsibilities to their employer as well as just getting obligation to represent your interpretation as even that scenario would not be quote directly involved that's correct because directly involved is a term of art which is defined as being seniority employed th international or with the court right if you discriminate against that's correct i just want to be clear about this even a contract for cation that called for the elimination of the jobs of half of your membership would not constitute quote directly involved the question from the union if you were to follow an appeal within the union and said i was directly involved i was not where you have to start is the presumption that the federal bench was not intended to micromanage unions decisions and that's where i thought it was significant and drawn strong i think just agreed that this rule is not based on in emphasis to this rule i mean i think this because of the admission mr sergeant at oral argument in the district court as it was he actually had been offered twice the opportunity to work more take more responsibilities to go get and then he would be able to vote  says you have to work for six years before you can vote that's really a burden because six years go on from a rule that says you have to attend ninety five percent of the union meetings before you can go a rule that says you have to say yes when the  calls you to give you work does not seem to have the same and just does not impose the same burden any the record indicates undisputed that any employed golden gate in any member of the union who is interested in being able to vote directly involved so if you had a situation with one hundred casuals and ten regular employees they presumably would have the votes in that within the union to change the bylaw and say you know we we want the union to act more on our beha a limited all casual employment then maybe that tells us something about the general standard of review of union decisions and we could perhaps import that to some extent in this reasonable niche designers we place this if there's a solution for it's satisfied for the greater the duty of fair representation that's really not available if you're discriminating against one group of employees to benefit another t that in the district court and he did not appeal that to you he brought section three a one action saying the union breached its constitution i do think it's worth noting that under their duty of fair representation the act which might otherwise seem shocking that the union could decide we want all full time jobs are going to get rid of all the casual employees is not actually shocking to the federal judiciary that's clear i believe that the far cases would say well that's a reasonable distinction is important regular part time full time jobs over inclusive or under inclusive and so the left is not a fine one scenario where a rule might seem unfair to a particular employee but instead as i say on balance doesn't seem a reasonable way for the union to accomplish its interests without imposing excessive hardship on any group of its members thank you very much particular contract only those directly affected and the question is is it reasonable to say only those who are willing to take jobs here as opposed to occasionally accepting well you know i just suggest this there that the whole premise of how easy it is for us to get jobs including attain a changing seniority i don't believe to be true but unfortunately the record casual but the unions implying that i could very easily get enough work to obtain seniority casual status and thereby the vote and that is absolutely not true and i would i would suggest to the court absolutely now not true because the union chose to eliminate five permanent casual shifts and create two full time jobs which in effect for reduces our chances of ever ever getting seniority  that the union hasn't shown any protection here we're not the enemy and in several other regions of course these casuals do vote without without these horrible consequences you mentioned the duty of fair representation and that's however in the scenario that that you set out eliminating all the casual jobs it would still be very difficult for an employee to file a d f r charge the union would have to have some sort of reason and i agree with  casuals we have no protection and no way to protect ourself he only way we'd be able to protect ourself is be given the right to vote on these vital issues that concern