convince us that substantial evidence not you're not are getting the first instance you have to convince us that substantial evidence doesn't support or that there was some clearly erroneous factual findings or something along those lines right that's correct your honor and the a decision does not withstand substantial evidence review and there's to the glaring error is the ail j s decision and the board decision failed to hold the general counsel to its burden to establish that discriminatory animus towards julia doobies protected activity caused a manipulation of the recall process and which of those points case from the eighth circuit in two thousand and fifteen it was issued during the brief in this case it's cited in our reply brief and the macos aluminum case is very important and it's right on point and here's why  important with respect to animists the circuit concludes and there was a bigger risk to send by the hour be board member mixer mara who's now chairman on these issues and the eight circuit except one you have to have you can't just have general animists you have to have animists that's connected to the discriminate t s specific protected activity and number two the nichols aluminum case holds that the general counsel bears the burden to prove causation that there has to be a causal nexus established and the board had been trying to get away from this articulating only that all we have to do is show animists and employer knowledge and we've satisfied our bird and nichols aluminum and the dissent from the n l r b says no right line is a causation test number one number two the general counsel has a tendency burden as a proponent of a violation to prove a violation and that requires that they show an amiss against a discriminat protected activity and that that animus caused in this case the alleged manipulation of the recall process first with respect to animus i'll submit to you and i won't go through it given the time but all the animus highlighted by the administrative law judge in her decision none of that has to do with with protected activity nobody has to do with protect that to indicate the holdings were that that it was known to the employer that it was a strong supporter of union activities and the points to various addition of anti union and of us at the time like the speeches by the the various why i'll agree with your first point that we are not challenging that ms do be engaged in various union activity that's employer knowledge we're not talking about employer knowledge we're talking about do you have a statement or w but you have to also look at the context of that that there's something to this seniority that if you don't get recall before your seniority expires then you lose all sorts of benefits right and so that's what happened to her right and all of this was happening a month is and how shifts and how this goes and hack and horn says that he was not asked if he wanted to pick up an additional shift even though he only had four shifts instead of the maximum amount of five and so you've got a lot of this all this circumstantial evidence is all things that can be factored in circumstantial evidence still needs to be specific and substantial and not speculative i'm going to leave the animists issue in a moment and go to the issues you're talking about because those are not supported by substantial evidence but the statement by dare that i was just doing what i told it's undisputed that the seniority practice was followed that servers were asked to take shifts in accordance with that policy and no server testify that they were ever forced to take the shift didn't seem that it was a force issue that seems to go to more of the manipulation in and of ends but let me just ask quickly about the animistic and there are also some e mails and in the record  that the board points to about michael douglas or somebody saying you know we're going to need to hire julia to do it unless she would put something in her record showing that she was a problem and in the last her time runs out she's and have to be hired again so there is clearly some remarks in the record that were aimed at her that those discussions were not they were going to have to hire her it was that if we do not hire her because she's complained about this we're going to get another u l p from the union and we don't want to do that and there's nothing on her file and douglas you know argument and the other backs are straight away is the way that she argued that that's what i'm talking substantial evidence that if you listen in the last case you can make all those arguments but no one is compelled to buy all of your arguments if there's contrary evidence but the statement does not relate to this conversion of the on call shifts to regular shifts which didn't happen during the fiftieth anniversary you know it was different than what happened in the fiftieth anniversary in the make a point that this seems to be an anomaly  what is the significance of that there's no significance take it for the on call shift issue right now your honor number one the jay concluded that on call shifts were dropped that's not true five on cautious were converted ok to understand that but they make the point that this had not been done before that in general the that there was no precedent and and the examples are they it space needle provide they say are not relevant because they were either occurred within a bin or immediately prior or after a bit but not in between two and so they say that's an anomaly it was a manipulation in order to avoid rehiring that's not accurate we provided a list of occurrences in a reply brief to this issue number one number to note that they were all distinguish e because they were all between because the examples were either immediately before after or during a bid i would invite you to look at the february two thousand and twelve example which is ego twelve twenty five on call shift which are not regular shifts as apples and oranges they don't affect the adding of servers by recall at all it's the number of shifts regular shifts you add an on call shift as in a work shift it doesn't matter you don't recall employees to fill in on call shift you recall employees to fill an added shift while if you look at the evidence what evidence did spacemen needle offer historical examples of so many chefs being added inbetween beds what what is in the record that supports i don't have the the great is that there were no historical examples of so many shifts being added in between beds and so many on call shift being converted into full time shifts at once that's not accurate if you again if you look at the february two thousand and twelve there's five employees a recalled on call shifts are converted in picked up by existing servers the five employees that are recall or mico lindsay mccauley do be the shifts were not given offered in order of seniority and although derek testified otherwise he didn't believe her and then there's the one incident of mr hanken door and says i was not single server to testify that they were forced to take a shift forest is not the issue the question is who was offered it because it the the testimony was that the additional shifts are offered in order of ships were offered and the employees chose to take the ships mr one was asked did anybody ask you to take a shift and he said no but then the follow up question because servants can ask each other to take shifts the follow up question he was asked did management ask you to take a shift and he said not that i recall but i'm a senior server and i never change my shifts and then asked have you ever been forced to take a shift by management he said no so you're saying his response is equivocal as to whether he was offered a shift as the of senior server you're saying his response i don't recall was equivocal so i'm saying  evidence of record that the seniority practice was followed and that the in the on call asking areas testimony union president van rossum testified if if that practice had not been followed and somebody had been skipped there would be a grievance filed there was never any grievance filed there was never an unlawful change in practice eighty five claiming that this system had had been deviated from effect all the it was followed the practice was followed and that's what determine who was recall and the general counsel presented no evidence and important in a substantial evidence review the un contradicted evidence of record supports the conclusion that there was no manipulation of the recall process your honor thank you thank you  morning may please the court joel however the national labor relations board against the backdrop of contentious labor relations space needle maneuver to rid itself of a prominent union supporter does there have to be specific evidence showing anim be for her union activities per nichols aluminum race of the board's position is that there is does not have to be that kind of direct link between and the specific union activity here and that that to make out it's to the causation causation the board must show that it isn't that you know activity was a motivating factor in the decision not to recall which is the right line standard the board has to show and this is the same three factors that this court identified in frank h t h corp you know activity knowledge by the employer of that you know activity both of those are uncontested here and miss and so that says the activity was a substantial or motivating reason for the employer's action which is cause also we have to we certainly have to show that there's a causal link correct israel and is a causation standard and what what has to be shown is that there is some action taken against in this case to be so against the impact of her evidence of cause that the company manipulated let's assume for the moment they manipulated their recall process in order to avoid recall in her because of her union activity because of her union activity so we have the contemporary other unfair labor practices we have the anti union rhetoric by the higher ups at the space needle the c e o and the owner including in those speeches that we talked about her  it is in a mist as to union activity and that is why under the board standard and under this court standard frankl is required if you are looking for the additional evidence that is not required in this by the where this court may be required but it's circuit but of course we're not bound by the eighth circuit here if you're looking for a more specific link and then the evidence i just presented is about speciation that cause is shown in any case where there is evidence of general union animus and a union of somebody who's active in the union is not recall or is not rehired that there's always going to be cause just per se is that is that the position of the board so this these are all very factual fact based question because you're saying there's not a per se rule that there has to be a factual link so what i'm saying is that the three easy yes or no question all right the per se rule every time there's sheen in activity and something happens to someone does that mean it's caused by it if there's evidence that has to be evidence of animists and so it's not a per se role you frustrating me so i apologise there was this general speech i looked at the two speeches that were given and it was clear that the company was frustrated by what was happening so the question is is that enough so that they're after any person any employee who's active in the union can have something happen to them can claim it was because of their protected activity there has to be a close a link between the animists and the i don't see anything that happens to him what if someone shot someone at work and fired because they shot someone at work but it was it can't you can fire someone for shooting someone at work i believe and i don't care whether it's theirs so it can't be yes you're going to a hard time it doesn't mean you lose just because you say it's not a per se rule but there's got to be something more than union activity something happens to an employee it does have to be some kind of connection between the to be animation and what happens to the employer and so what we have to apologize for taking so long what we have in this case is this evidence that the board found of manipulation of the public it's just a manipulation just let's get back to the relationship to do the the evidence you have is the mention of the anonymous letter that was circulated is there any other sorry i hope it doesn't affect we have that but we also offer earlier statements by after the not to do b to other people get to know to do b after these speeches that we were discussing dare spoke to do b and she said what do you think about this speech hey wouldn't it be great if we didn't have to follow siebert was displeased by doobies union activity of circulating this letter there was another instance in which crystal dare spoke to lou christiansand one of the he was the union steward in the shot but that's shifts to regular shifts and found that that was unprecedented the space needle put in examples of where it had happened before and the  yes they happened on occasions when there wasn't but it wasn't in the middle of the bidding process so here is just so there were for example this in like the board acknowledged that they were examples where this conversion took place outside of the process so why the why isn't there undercut i think that was unprecedented it was clearly it was present ok so the reason why those are not relevant comparisons analogies is whether once that happened when it's actually the record is not that clear about when the new bid started at one point it says it starts on june thirteenth but the june thirteenth schedule doesn't seem to be all that different from the previous so i  agreed to that as to that specific date is a little confusing as to when the shift occurred but there does seem to be a little flux period in the week immediately after at least in this one example  that's not what happened here we have some business in the twenty thirteen bed that we're talking about in this case the the spring bid began in february the summer bigbig began in june and the manipulation occurred at the end of march so it's really in the middle when i get anywhere not in any way close to the shift of a story so it's distinguishable because the priors were not in the middle they weren't during that period but they weren't between two so that's the basis for saying it's distinguishable is that what you're apologize if this this is not clear it wasn't all that clear to me and the record is it may have happened at the start of a bid because it is labeled at the front you know new bid starts this week so it's certainly possible that  management but you know i never changed my so is that the only evidence the additional server spots were not ordered in order of seniority so that's that's  goes through in seniority order and asks the servers do you want to take is there any other test so so there's the one sentence by heck and or was there any other evidence supporting the finding that was my question as this example of manipulations there were other examples of manipulations that the board found so the the board finding that there was another one of the difficult every time we ask a question you want to talk about something so i will address your question subsequent decision because if if he if the procedures had been followed as to him that would affect the decisions you would well i don't think we can say that because if he had made a different decision then perhaps some people might not take a new bid they said they go in seniority order they did not going seniority order here benefit servers who were laid off because it had been born had taken a shift there would be less shifts available for laid off servers to come on to the schedule that would not be something somebody who is trying to discriminate against laid off servers attempt to me distinguish the on call situations in the schedules where they drop when they come back on the general counsel if their theory is that on call was manipulated and you're the proponent of the bernie call somebody to say that happened call somebody to say that the they didn't do what they normally do with on call shifts call somebody didn't call anybody and they didn't call anybody to testify that all these after the  and amanda you can see the conversion and acceptance of new on call shifts post up there took it through and so i asked them last thing i want to say is the apples and oranges analysis where the l g tries to compare may twenty three two thousand rather to march twenty five two thousand and thirteen that's speculation the assumption is that somehow the servers in may of two thousand and eleven would have made the exact same ratio and type of decisions in accepting shifts as they would have made and in march of two thousand and thirteen there's nine servers who are not on both schedules nobody testified about that it's unsupported and it fails under substantial evidence review just like all of the other attempts to say the space needle manipulated the schedule there was no manipulation of the schedule thank you thank you your honor thank you for your arguments now that you resolve your other matters when we're done when issue