ma'am please the court i'm milton jones for the petitioners security walls today we present two issues for the consideration of the court number one should the record be reopened for further evidence number two can a policy handbook supersede a negotiated non personal service contract first let's get started with the issue about reopening there is no doubt that the three officers who were fired  did not stop people from entering the i r s facility in austin texas we want to be open the record to submit further evidence that the decider would have rejected reinstating the three officers yeah but th is the difference between theory and reality is that in theory we could have queried the all the way up to the director maybe even the president but in reality you can't do that reason why you can't do that is because the process is the contract that you're relying on is that the service could direct us but service  automatically and if i can explain here's what i did what happened here i believe is that the i r s did not necessarily direct us at that time company or your clients company bargained for a position with the union that you would bargain in consult with before you made any disciplinary moves even if the i r s had said look somebody goes in the facility the people who lot of men are fired immediately even if they had said that what you did what your company did was let these guys go without bargaining and that whether or not the i r s said they got to go or not doesn't change the ultimate outcome that the n l r b achieved here i am standing once again it's the difference between the theory and the reality in reality we could not have queried any further than what we did the people that we deal with the people that control our contracts they have some things in common they have massive influence they have fragile egos and they have long memories if it got out that we were trying to leap frog to get to the hired people we could have lost our contract these people are very influential and they could have made it so that we could not get any further contracts around the country once it became clear to us that the deciders really weren't consulted in this one and it became equally clear to us that they would not have reinstated these men then that shows that we were excusably ignored but once we became aware of it minority for the board pointed out it's a matter of reading the board's rules the way they should be read and that is liberally conscription strewed and also the board minority talk about fairness substantial evidence to support the board truly and and whether we have to and for the let's talk about the substantial evidence is that in this case we believe there was not substantial evidence because first of all the board of course did not reopen the case to hear our further evidence secondly the board did not follow its president the board's president also always has been that a policy handbook does not supersede a negotiate a contract if we had a collective bargaining agreement and the employer put out a policy handbook that that this year did that took away the collective bargaining agreement and they would say that doesn't work because a policy handbook cannot take away negotiate a contract in this case we had to negotiate a contract between the i r s and security was yes just crack however is that the way that we see it is the way that i believe the courts and the courts say that there should be a opportunity to be fully heard and the courts have criticized the board in the past by saying in strict adherence to its rules and regulations does not do that and that is an abuse of discretion so under our theory was it reasonable for security walls not to rock the boat risking this present and future once it became clear that the decider wasn't consultant then and only then were really able to bring the evidence that evidence to light asking that the record be reopened that the evidence became newly discovered and not previously available to standard  we apply and determining whether to reopen who standard yeah ours or the second guess what the board would i believe that we have to go in the area of on review or the board standard in terms of well i don't think we have to get to that in other words we all agree that a party to reopen the record to introduce evidence that is newly discovered  has to show that if the movie had acted with reasonable diligence to uncover and introduce the evidence in this situation we were excusably ignorantly you know all of that yes your honor i here is that we believe that it would because we know that that we know that property we know alston we know the arris we also know that people want to hurt the i r s one guy got into a plane and he flew it into the side of the building at the i r s we know that they understand not just the or the understand the reality when good morning hours barbarously he for the national labor relations board just will have a couple of points i'd like to make i'm not sure i have much add beyond what our brief anything that we misunderstand about this matter absolutely no there's no misunderstanding there's just one thing i'd say is that there was a hearing on this and there were witnesses called by the employer there was you know carpenter which was one of their own officials and the so there it's not that there wasn't a full hearing or an opportunity here so i think that's all i'd like to add  any authority do anything and he knew and he didn't do anything there's a contemporaneous e mail exchange where he's bude the videotapes and he doesn't suggest that there's going to be any action taken so i just wanted to remind the court that there was actually i'm sure the court's aware but that there was a hearing on it so unless are any questions i don't think there's a misunderstanding and i don't think i can add beyond what's in our brief and the what the questions are party flushed out so