as far back as making forty one the u s supreme court noted that the concept of medication damages in national labor relations board cases involves a healthy policy of promoting production and employment you know one of the cases consistent again no policy of promoting production and employment our position in this case is the evidence didn't support the administrative law judge finding that mr mccallum actually made a sincere and diligent effort to try to find alternate employment as the court knows we've got basically four seen job applications in a more than two year period he testified to potentially twenty contacts and then saying and i realize that's a high burden for me to persuade this court but i would point out that even the national labor relations board occasionally not in this case but occasionally overturns credibility findings as well and i think when you look at all the evidence  weekly basis we don't have testimony that he was told to keep a record of a job search but the the minimal amount of effort it would have taken to jot down a note that on september fifth i applied on craigslist following job i think is very telling the other thing i guess i'd like if his testimony is that he every couple of weeks did internet searches yes just so  don't set aside the credibility finding you lose is is that enough i still don't think that's enough judge i don't think if you count the number of days were over seven hundred days in the back pay period even if we believe you made eighty to ninety job application three a period i still think that shows ability jobs if i was trying to get work i element of diligence in capas to hear if indeed the public policy that has been enunciated by the supreme court is to promote employment the man have an obligation to work reasonably hard not necessarily saying that in fact i think that that sort of helps if the court recalls the testimony of mr elstree primarily these conversations were about am i going to get back to mt miller as a result of this korean settlement that's certainly a reasonable question to ask in the first month after the grievance award second month third month at some point i would think that the conversation would be turning to he look you're my union in pain couple that with the fact that we have the testimony from prairie materials that they routinely contect of union to find truck drivers and the fact that the illinois unemployment was never any discussion of trying to find work but with with testimony from third party uninterested witnesses about the number of job openings that there were  i just find it difficult to believe that mr wells read some point didn't say you know we've got ultimately found a pipeline job for him transporting men around the job site but if  indeed there were nearly a thousand jobs in trucking filled during the strike pay period as found by the administrative law judge there clearly was work and the the witnesses that we put on at the other thing in the system thoroughly briefed and i don't want to waste court's time i would like to point out that part of the reason for the administrative law judge was finding was that  in illinois you can collect unemployment for twenty six weeks in the usual case so assuming he got it in twenty thirteen twenty fourteen or part of twenty fifteen that only counts for half the year and even then the board law the talks meeting telephone number twice a week and i'm not sure exactly what he did push a button or something like that to say he was available for work being available for work i suggest is different than actively looking for work  would say in general the company's presentation loses sight more ignores several basic principles as the victim of an unfair labor practice that resulted in loss of employment mr  some back pay so the company's position that it owes nothing in this case is really quite startling the company has the burden to rebut the presumption that some back pay is good and where it's asserting a job search defense as in this case it's specific burden is to show that they discriminate he did not make an honest good faith effort to find interim employment during the back pay period and i have to disagree with my colleagues that there is not substantial evidence in this case to support the finding that the company did not meet its burden mr mccallum credibly testified that he searched for work on a bi weekly basis looking at multiple sources walking int on his own where there were no ads looking online and he also had at least sound documentation he's looking he's sort of a he testifies sheesh looking every other week on  internet driving around a particular site of but there are two things he didn't do one was look at the website or  list maintained by the state of illinois as part of it unemployment help for people who are unemployed who are getting unemployment compensation and the other is while he's clearly in gauged with the union in some respects my understanding is he doesn't really seek help from their out of work referral list and your response to that quite rightly is to say as a general matter the worker doesn't have to do everything everything possible but those seem like they would be pretty obvious alternatives for someone who going to the thankfully did do and considers whether that reflects an honest good faith effort so an exhaustive search yes would have included the various other outlets that you're talking about but he didn't have to use any particular avenue in order to preserve his right to back pay and i am i am i wrong that those who would be particularly obvious and particularly promising me got going to veld list of jobs maintained by his union for people who need that kind of work seems like a more promising avenue than going on monster dot com i want to welcome regular incorrectly mccallum reasonably believed that by keeping in touch with the union representative that he knew he was relaying his interest in work on an ongoing basis and he did communicate with him regularly and that's that so help me out just what he did or didn't do with the union he is engaged with the union but on this work referral list your response in your brief is not that he did that it's that he didn't have to do that so what is he joining with the union and what is he not doing with well he didn't go through the formalities of getting on the list and there appears to be have been some sort of misunderstanding on his side as to what he needed to do because his testimony is he believed that he had done enough by simply talking to the union representative and in fact in two thousand and fifteen he got a check from the union proving that what he did was enough in terms of the union because it was always understood by mr wanted work and was looking for work it was actually mr albert bell's priest choice to withhold certain opportunities for mr mccowen because he thought he would get employment with the company after winning a grievance after winning the ford  case and so on i will also mention in terms of the illinois state resources through the unemployment office there's a i believe it's the second circuit case that cited in our preferred lanigan field in which the employee did  databases it doesn't because i don't think mr or mr lee's evidence about the resources of the unemployment office the listing of jobs i don't think that that actually was admitted into the record but i may be mistaken about that in any event that as the board's brief points out the the illinois unemployment benefits law requires an active search for work and that is extremely clear from the literature that the unemployment agency provides and puts on line and that is all cited in the brief i will say in terms of the telephone system that mr lead refers to in term it may seem like a minor effort to press buttons on a phone but the pressing of buttons to reflect answers to certification questions and so the employees  certify not only availability for work but also the fact that they have done an active job sort of search in the prior to weeks before the certification and the state punishes that punishes instances of fraud so this actively search for work during the five a period i will also say that mr mr lee just told the court that his client does not believe and he does not believe thought mr mccallum made a reasonably diligent search for work i will just remind the court that the standard is whether the fact finder found mr mccallum believable and he did the fact finder credited mr mccallum with an honest good faith effort over the course of the entire back pay period he based that decision in part on corroborating documentary evidence testimony from the union representative and mr mr mccallum specific recollection of over twenty job contacts so i would submit to this court that the evidence is substantial to support the boys decision the company has not shown that their credibility determinations are patently insupportable which is the standard in th court and therefore we do ask for enforcement of the board's compliance decision and the award of back pay in addition and this is not an issue that the company is contesting the board is also entitled to enforcement of its prior order having to do with the remedy for the unfair labor practices and because it's an uncontested order the board is entitle to some rain foresman thank you  maybe we're making too much of this employer issue but the fact the matter is that mr mccallum would only have to justify or explain his job search if he was asked  to the standard again i have already recognized that in asking this court to overturn credibility fighting i'm fighting an uphill battle but i do think that the court has to look at all the evidence including the evidence that detracts from the evidence in this