they could have said that they did not say that they limited the extent to which they did in fact credible so what did he say what was your sister with your witnesses well mr escobar said is that there will be  see the circumstances surrounding the election and they make the decisions that the we're somebody should or should not election here and if you think about in this case the facts i mean this was an election with ten voters for small environment on it's a small bird but but so take a small of the number of union representatives or members who show up an election year in place were make an issue of the ratio between the number of union spectators if you will it had to be prohibited because of the neighborhood or the size of the buildings any number of voters or at the end of the day the goal is to ensure that the employees have an opportunity to revoke i three elections and the board makes decisions as to whether that's going to happen and that they just saw that situation i'm sure was and it was their mind that having those folks have to walk through that gauntlet on their way into the building is not letting their minds be free of with her earlier this made my point the reason i ask you the hypothetical is is the problem here not the electioneering qual reaction hearing it is the problem here that electioneering occurred in spite of the agents  that the company has me about the anti semitic remark factually i want to be crystal clear the border agent here did not designate the front of the building a agent saying anything about the people on the phone building and he answers quickly we know because she didn't talk about it refined to the front of the building that is a conflict i mean that that's kind of the very most basic conflict that you inconsistent with their witnesses and on the point that we're talking about now about in front of a building escobar is perfectly consistent with their witnesses who might be slightly askew with  disagree that that's not a conflict and it's a little odd here because it wasn't their witness union witness these are actually no union witnesses so that's a little unusual but  right to point out that the company did not accept to these credibility determinations so to the point that they're saying the hearing officer messed up and these credibility determinations the court simply doesn't h election and the same with the remark certainly it's terrible but the board simply concluded that it didn't rise to the level that the employee's votes should be just started i mean if there are no further questions i think the court for your time thank escobar is a representative of the union who was called by the union testified who was in that room at the preelection hearing as a representative agent well that their argument is he's incredible i think i read i read what you're just talking about there he's incredible to the extent that he's inconsistent i don't know that we got a full and fair reading of mr him in his testimony that he just thirty three to thirty four the question was i'm talking about in because she doesn't talk about it but that's where we're going to continue reading but the page she just said the lawyer but you can't be there the warrior can't be there those are the folks that were in the free election hearing he said talking about in front of the building that was the question the answer was the union can't be there a lawyer cannot be there so i didn't receive their tunes refer only to the front of the building if you look at the question that was asked the question was i'm talking about in front of the building that's significantly not the sole question and when the board only looked at that as the so question big move the fact that this court is superman said we reject that we're not going to put our boys to that course we're not going to agree with that when they said