has to allow them to have their own contract interpretation system to interpret a contract in a way that's never been interpreted by the federal courts or by any court state or federal and they're asking it to be a special rule apparently for collective bargaining rights rule that makes no sense so we're starting with a simple question here today is there a contract clause that the union could administer because that's what the board determined there was a contract whatsoever to any new food market now you're then say well we're taking one part of the transfer provision and saying that it can apply to them right of employees to transfer to the new food market and that's exactly what the union argued if you go back and read their letters they said these contract provisions applied to the new store they didn't say these kind checker visions don't apply to the store but we have certain rights with mister roosevelt that was these contractor visions applied to the new store section one point one three says no they may not apply to the new store until it's been opened to the public for fifteen days and we don't just agree that once that was open to the public for fifteen days the union who is fully capable of importing its contract provisions fully capable of asking for information to which we would be required to respond but the issue is prior to that th opening where they entitled the information because there was a potential preach at that time if you say there was a potential breach at that time you were saying there was some contract clause that potentially gave the employees rights fees that the the new santa clara store and that overrides and i was standing right and to do that you would be the st court to can apply to the santa clara store because the santa clara store is not open is not a representative complement of employees the union hasn't proven majority support so now the language becomes totally meaningless if your position becomes well the no standing language only means that this contract doesn't apply to the new store but everything in it can be applied to the employees within this existing bargaining unit these of either new store or they have the right to transfer it right to know what their wage rates are  write to know what the classifications are right to know the number of jobs classifications they have a right to employee handbook if they're entitled to all of that then what is the purpose of this notwithstanding when it has no purpose because we are ready have that legal right because by law  comes to open his store that was the purpose of the language and once the new store was open the union could say look you had an obligation to staff the store with a codger the existing employees and we would say yes we have that obligation and now  obligation but otherwise it becomes a loser and more importantly it it violates the the conclusion region is not the conclusion the board reached if you read the a l j as decision she interpreted section one point to allow certain parts of the contract to apply and other parts not to apply so we're faced with the fact that we have language in this contract that says no part of this agreement applies we have mastro plastics by the supreme court saying you  contract and see if there's something in the contract that the union can rely upon to base that it's request for information that's simply is not true this is part connecticut yankee both hold that the board looks to look at the entire contract looks to see if there's anything in the contract that precludes the unions grievance or the unions clay and when there is something in the contract that precludes that it doesn't say well we just look to see if there are words in the contract the potentially would allow the union to make its claim so that is not that is not board law and the board is making that argument to you for the simple reason that they have no way to refute the supreme court precedent both statutory and contractually that  and the board said no record the after quite stars clauses one point one section one point one three determines when it takes effect and it doesn't take effect until fifteen days after the store is open to the public section one intil the store's been open to the public and if something would make no sense for the board to say well one point one three is a tiny reason respect to one point one but it's not a tiny provision with respect to any other part of the country it has to be the same and turns out any if interpretation of that clause all the board did was look at backlog say ok this clause effect when the union must be recognized at the new location that's all it does whether you want to call it a timing clause or an a current employees that other store location  not that's not in dispute here everybody before the board and before this court has the body has disputed that meaning that reading of that section of the contract then the next question is what does that mean for the employees or for the union's right to request information regarding current employees at other locations and that is something that we believe is about the scope of the union's representational duties and while it's informed by contract language we don't think that's resolved by contract language entirely so that's that's what we believe the board would get deference on i guess i see your question as drawing the line line at a slightly different point but that's where i went the that this is the order that the c p a doesn't apply to the new store until fifteen days that after the stores that open the board here is really making a relevance determination and those determinations depend on the facts the beach case so when nob hill cites a cases such as this court's view such as disneyland park or this court's decision in san diego newspaper that have language in them that discuss things such as ok there must be a ok we have current employees it's been physically said these employees are looking for more hours we're hoping that their transfer of rights are treated fairly and we want to ensure that it's undisputed that knob hill was opening a new store and the contract provided the union with rights to transfer to the new store and certain rights for how transfers would be treated including that a caterer of people from the union of union representative employees would or a caterer current employees rather would be used at the new store parts of the contract apply to the new store but it was clear in later correspondences that that's not the argument the union was making the unions looking at current employees as it is made that argument to this according to the board and the contract is significant requirement can only apply fifteen days after the store opens therefore the union's request is premature because the unions requesting all this information that it couldn't discern a contractual breach until fifteen days after but the board's law doesn't require that the union be able to assert a contract will be breached immediately on getting the information all it requires is that the information request be relevant minimally relevant or potentially relevant even if the language from disneyland park to the idea to the question of whether the contract has been breached and so the number of employees hired in november ok and how many of them were union represented at previous stores is certainly relevant to how many who would be still working there in two months in january these are not it's not a it's not sort of a just because the union couldn't immediately use that information and so it renders it totally irrelevant and so that's yeah so i guess that's the timing point and also as to the current breach point i do want to point out here that there's several different cases that talk about the current breach and usually in those cases in those factual situations like in san diego a newspaper like in just does the event park the union's request for information the factual basis of it basis of it requires that are breaches occurred for that because we think they might be working actually union jobs and so that will go into the revenues that we would get under a breach of the contract etc and if they were in fact working union jobs that would be relevant but the board's law in just un park and  information to do is to determine the question of whether it wanted to file a grievance with the st place and that's why information such as the wage rates would be rates at these new positions are relevant if you know if these are all mostly paid position is types of information that would go to the remedy and breach situation as in the wage rates would be nonunion employees if they were for forming union workers here and so it in terms of whether cases go in gold all directions  it's certainly true that you can look at many factual circumstances there are lots of information requests cases in the board and maybe in this court as well and different factual circumstances come out different ways and that's why both the board and its court of characterize it as a fact saying nothing is implicated in the current agreement we're not going to respond so we knew from the beginning it weren't going to respect any provision of the current agreement as did new store until fifteen days later and so that's why we pursued it and the complaint in this case didn't come to the months after the store opened so we still didn't have the information and that's why it's it's a little different we also had some factual haven't they were complying because there's not a letter in the record from john newman's the president to the company complaining because they're telling workers stories going to be nonunion so we already knew they were doing something to sort of interfere with our ability to get workers there i just want to merits of their transfer all those arguments i'm simply saying if their position was and i was standing language doesn't mean what you say it means mister you were going to take that arbitration they didn't do that they followed but they only nd arbitration if they had some must offer more than mere research miles for it to be entitled to information balancing these two conflicting propositions the solution is for buyers from a national but not overwhelming demonstration by the union that some the implementation of various provisions of the contract until if teen days after the stores open to the public at that point the union could raise yet all the grievances it now contends it wants to raise this is simply a timing mechanism it is not a go negotiate that we didn't need to take a strike to get this kind of way that is a ready the law no collective bargaining agreement could go to a new retail including ploys choose the union and the employees choose the conscious though to accept general