employer to recognize and oregon with the union that represented the drivers who had previously who had worked previously for release predecessor pumpernickel but you would not have an objection to  what happened in this case which often happens is the employer went to the hearing then to the testimony general manager walsh who testified that at the time that he got the call from the union he general then for walsh and also having presented that in the documentary evidence and having absolutely zero new evidence being presented by the general pencil that suggested that had majority  now the union clearly suggested that it did not continue to represent a majority of the employees there was testimony and discussion about the authentication of the signatures in the  had happened prior to release coming on the scene so it really had nothing to do with the employees decided that they didn't want to hear again then they were hired by late this year after they provided some documentary evidence to really to support and those were the sign signatures i think that is the critical distinction is still here on the part of the  think the only circuit court that is actually addressed that specific issue which is a more limited number which is the fourth circuit they rejected the theory that the employee would have to authenticate the signatures of the different appointees particularly because you have to recognize move against labor stability and in this case neither employee rights to make a decision to refrain from union organizing was in fact at play nor was there an issue of labor throughout this entire proceeding that we are to my second point then the board's decision here concerns are essentially an affirmative defense that the company's trying to raise that despite having violated the law we have an affirmative defense that gets us gets before the corridor i should say the first ten minutes appears in any of the record below isn't the board's decision the issue about alleged it's finding that they had union we're not going to recognize you don't want the union this protocol council same thing is told we're not going to recognize you we don't want the union here the signatures don't show up for at least two weeks later the last signature on those which essentially pointing out that employees had been griping mostly really about pumpernickel and clearly pumpernickel circling the drain the union talk about the fact that yes they were violations the bargaining agreement and that they were working with the company and had agreed that some of those benefits could be postponed in the hopes of trying to keep the company still in despite all the best efforts the company in fact did go into bankruptcy but in this gets us back to the primary issue at the point of the there's not much they can do this we have this new report here come in and the purpose of the bar here is to allow a period of time it which things can stabilize that the new where we are as an understated successor will recognize and bargain with this union for a minimum of six months time and then employee rights can be protected during that time and maybe they pin one showed that his testimony somehow shows that their effect was disaffection and if you look at his testimony a lot of these complaints are about pumpernickel and how everything went down the drain with the bankruptcy but that doesn't mean that it's employee disaffection and certainly when you look at what's required when you're talking about disaffection with regards to a petition you're looking for some concrete evidence because if you're trying to oust the union the ideal of course is going to be a poor proceeding a secret ballot election with a period of campaigning self help and worldwide non statements or some type of petition that we're going to require move away from that good faith uncertainty that we want you know it's always to be at you constructing that and that there is really not much merit to their arguments that the board has has is jumo deference because a supreme court precedent or because it's bob as we point out in the river street case that the bar for an agency to transportation did not allow st elizabeth's hospital a time to proclaim that any transportation or flexibly a negative they react to any fact that they would create a that there should be this bar let's see what happens when the board has changed its mind on the issue as frequently as it is in this case isn't there an obligation to justify the most recent iteration by something more than simply saying let's see what happens it's not what see what happens it's that's the problem that it had with part of the problems that have with m p transportation the board is saying that we're going back to st elizabeth's that n v transportation success of our going back and also looks at successorship in general in the very strong considerations there for the presumption and what the board citizen who show you the code is that with the importance that successorship plays and labor of all in we important protecting the stability of bargaining relationships during this very critical time then we're going to have this insulated period is another term the board uses and then it's going to be this minimum of six months and then there's a burden shift if it has to go wrong given that and that during this time we're going to protect employees rights we're going to protect the rules and we're going to preserve the doesn't say that the dissent is completely off in left field that this is a close question this is one that reasonable lines in terms of board members have disagreed with and and it it certainly honor but it isn't the fact that the change here has that there are reasons for the change and then again it goes back to what the board said about the dissent in you joe unico it's not that that is a completely impermissible position that it's a policy choice and of course policies often differ by board members and what their experience is and more their perspective is on labor law and where it goes too far where it does not go far enough if you're suggesting  rationales and in disregarding what is formed with some pretty firmly established principles from from the board from the supreme court it certainly i think would have a chilling effect o any future board or it certainly would for making policy decisions that this is that this is certainly not so bare bones footnote announcing a new principal this is a well thought out decision it's an ongoing dialogue that the board has had with itself over the years and it might continue to have been for a court to say that that that is impermissible that what is contained in this decision here is just little the standard the threshold would certainly be extremely troubling in terms of the broader looking at all of its rules going forward and as they were points out you show you the purpose of administrative law is constant development change sometimes it's one step forward in two steps back but it's a constant refinement and this might be one principle that continues to go back and forth as many board principles have gone back and forth several times the voluntary recognition bar understand what the critique is and so they've they amended how it interacts with the contract bar and they've also now to find a reasonable period of programming so it's simply not a flip flop of copying and pasting the same elizabeth decision and th facts in lily are quite unusual i've done this kind of work for her for too many years i think and i will just tell you it's unusual to have this kind of situation and so when the e g bill unico case is about is the usual circumstance the theory of a presumption is that it ought to apply in the vast majority of situations a robot will presumption says ah there might be a unique case i believe really is the unique case and i believe that is why the presumption needs to be robust noble and if one looks in the suggestion that well you know we didn't think that the the adequate explanation is what you're going to pose to do when you have you might have a republic presumption that constantly never sees any alternatives but whatever those facts are in under big wide this circuit determined said finally with regard to the suggestion of reconsideration this was a case about the successor for that's what this case was you know the complaint provided as it's rather than and that is the major part of the decision and therefore because of that any just any request for reconsideration would have been an empty gesture it would not have changed the underlying circumstances and the board's rules specifically need not go through an empty gesture the signatures or the amount of the showing of interest was in fact somewhat in play and everyone knew it the board had the opportunity to cross examine general manager walsh and it just didn't get out the evidence that it needed thank you thank you