massive renovation rehabilitation improvement and expansion resulting in the forecasted tripling of daily visitors and apply a twenty five percent increase fast rule rigidly applying a mathematical model to summarily conclude that the then current complement of employees was substantial and representative and consequently the election would proce arbitrary an abuse of discretion and not ration neither the ballot totals row the end of them are these failure to offer a reason to decisions in its prior cases justifies what you did here and this court may not substitute its reasoning to remedy the n r t easter therefore the petition for review should be granted and b n o r v's order should be denied enforcement so i seeking and i take it to a case of the main fifteen but that was in a situation like this where the numerical benchmarks were mad substantial so that number was satisfied but it sounds that compliment not to be representative and our want here is certainly admittedly the employer did not intend to modify the job titles of the employees for example in the beautician for a bargaining unit there are guest room attendants those are the people who leave in meeting the hotel guest room current case the compliment was not representative so there was evidence of a prospective increase in the number of drug classifications that you think the board competing balancing of competing objectives the avoidance of hard and fast just awarded this trip mathematical formula and consider what these people will be doing compare the current situation to what  the question so on once is is that someone sixty seven the decision does say applying the standards set forth above understand or set forth above include all the various considerations that you think should be taken into days then your argument you wouldn't have the same argument you have now because those considerations would have been taken into account in the way that you think they should have been or might not understanding or i don't well your honor interestingly enough i read the phrase and said to go to that paragraph immediately about two i did not understand that with the later what was attempting to do was to take us how those how god those changes related to the issues associated with the representative to nature are getting it i'm not sure i'm entirely following it so i guess i do follow that you're saying it's the job classifications that are likely to become perhaps subdivided or there there would be an addition of some drug prescriptions and th that from reading the board's opinion that that you had so claimed and identified these additional jobs and that the board ends up in looking at them saying but we still think that the that the incumbent workers are sufficiently representative not to you can eliminate your the work force and i'm just i'm just trying to tease out what is the kind of analysis that's missing that you would want and how we could reach it under this very deferential standard that we have we understand that there is a tremendous differential standard here and what we submit your honor is that the labor board decision is lacking in terms of reasoning and most certainly you cannot substitute your reasoning for the board in order to remedy and stir what we maintain is that the labor board failed to redress the  percent similar only three years after the case of the industry the board in yellowstone decided to direct an election with the employing something about time with thirty eight percent so this is the legal argument that the company makes is it isn't crap the gist of it that if the employer had presented evidence for example that the number of job classifications required different requirement different  the rest that in fact and presumably didn't look at the mood of the prompter anticipated job classifications the board would have had to look at that and say this is a factor that's going to  occasions there would have been so is it your position that if that numerical threshold is met and it's not even close that the board does not also consider the type of skills  that the employee complement currently versus what six anticipated the number of jobs classifications currently and what's anticipated if the current numbers are sufficiently will bust must the board also consider the need sure own the new jobs the time in which the onboarding is expected l first of all there is no wall that are test in any of the word decisions there's a decision that the employer relies upon toto industries it was a regional director decision the board tonight review a decision in the regional director listed several factors that the board has considered and in previous cases where those factors are relevant not that those factors are always considered but where they are relevant and in fact in two industries having persuaded those factors the regional director then looked at the numbers and said based on these numbers we think there is a substantial and representative complement of the employees the regional director in this case didn't go different then this regional director did in total industries or no different than the word has done in any single piece involving the expanding unit doctrine of the relocation doctrine or any of these instances where the substantial representative issue comes up and i do address the issue of new work what the new work was going to require because council made representations that the work was going to be different and that whole process in subs there is going to be a new process and substances of work i on the nd exactly let's be clear with the evidence that there was no evidence of any new nature of work the three the five classifications that were going to be added three of them servers beverage server all of this work was of the very same kind that was already being performed nothing new the idea that there was going to be new luxury suites sure that they have increased the work for  it was no evidence at all of that in the record and example in ten seconds if the employer had opened up let's say a new stadium for the las vegas raiders in las vegas and operated the hotel and the stadium for the raiders we would be talking about potentially is a very substantial different direction of the work and good if in a case like this the employees have elected to be represented and that when the employer of jack and there's a key figure for the board and then they petitioned and bring that ties in all this time the employees are not unilateral tender well if for example it increases the cost of medical benefits without market it with the union that would be an example that it hugh i really do hose higher costs upon employees practice charges saying hey remember us you're supposed to be recognizing house you're not to do it is basically the nature of preserving all that's intact we preserve her directions theory that during the two years it takes for us to win an election by an overwhelming majority we're not suggesting that every one of the toto factors need to be addressed in every case what needs to happen is that there must be going full reasoned analysis and i took the opportunity to take another look at the regional directors decision in my head of the questions from the panel and we stand by where we have stood before which is the regional director recites the relevant is we disagreed with the very standard but yes we acknowledge it's satisfied here but in this instance what we say here is the representative complement is not satisfied here and our point is when the modifications that were identified in the hearing are present as they are here this significant expansion improvement in operations that most certainly even if there are not changes in job titles that that there must be changes in job responsibilities and on regional director failed to he should have been considered and how the board should have considered him in a way that point by the record and it would potentially out it is accurate to say the total industries and the end all and be all of the factors what we would do is to take a look at the total factors and to say if you take a look at the industry because the total factors tell us that industry is one of the factors to be considered and also take a look at new job classifications and we're not saying that they were going to be new drug classifications was the employer and certainly did not argue that but we don't focused on that same for an example of the rd factor that the that the regional director noted in his list of things that the palms was going to change and premium alter of luxury suites and approximately what the industry in las vegas of premium over a luxury suite we understand is going to require different work and different different process to achieve that work in the rooms in an altar a luxury suite you mind graham polishing silver i mean there could be pinball machines there is a basketball court there are pool tables there are many television sets there are balconies there are hot tubs on balconies looking out on the last piece you are evidence of that record no you and is there any explanation why those are respect to the prematurity of the of the filing was when the employer was in the throes of its expansion the i'm the owner had only it wired this property two years earlier it was investing this significant amount of money to modify the property and all of the issues associated with who will be doing what had not been had not been addressed but most significantly what it was clear was that they were going to be significant changes in the operation and in the facility and these employees were going to be doing the work associated with that but you just acknowledged one part of the record that they got the be they are doing different work and it will be you didn't know the board apparently not you but there is no evidence record about what the new jobs are there was evidence that there that these big ations were going to be made and what that means is that a conclusion must be reached as to whether the labor board is going to consider all of the factors and the employer didn't know that's what he just did knowledge he didn't know have an election as soon as possible to recognize the rights of the employees but at the same time on the flip side not to have an election such a manner that employees are almost out of the process but you acknowledge t was going to vary from what the production would be in the future and that the ultimate type of jobs what would be ultimately done by that by those workers in the future was different than the work that was done by those workers at the