the employer did not see or if you feel intimidated but instead just said report if you are intimidated and i submit there is not a meaningful difference between those two formulations it should not matter whether employees feel or said i have floated to another unit and feel like i'm being harrison pressured to sign a card what can i do and then as i understand your argument you took that to mean that she floated to the language over to another unit that she was being approached about the union in a patient area which is of course not allowed and you do say and you do say it is not legal for you to be solicited while you're a patient carrier performing your job career is that your position with respect to the second track that is that's one of the position for the second issue and also if we really use the term around us in the response to the question so we don't use the word again the unlawful formulation of the word pressure in every case where pressure is included with the word was that argument made your exceptions so it was an argument made here exceptional the exception is statement occurred could not name even the year the us violation occurred in addition to being being unable to name the year the conversation occurred it with is also done even the other nurses involved state whether the nurses were at work in time the board does it takes a letter from two thousand and eleven to say that you shouldn't talk about a new salary wage increase today and take the spike of the week that in two thousand fifteen's on the grounds that peterson may have know what year the statement occurred and we don't know what other persons were allegedly involved in this it's impossible for the in puerto rico to disprove this which just highlights further that the order didn't meet the substantial evidence standard here if we can you go about finding a way to disprove it fashion to make these personal attacks for all of us coworkers to hear it although outside of the protection for example to do a twenty six ascension where she provides all of these different excuses to different supervisors and different stories about whether she made calls to fill an emergency staffing situation you clear is right to question that when  unfairly accused the employer of not getting to the bottom of these inconsistency in marshall's story so sorry in the employer's version of events the inconsistency is the issue if you look at the evidence that all the inconsistency is come from marshall's version of events she tells different people different things about what she did when asked for a list of employees to provide a to provide a list of employees that she allegedly called she refuses to buy that list of employees she told one determination so if you look at the at the at the record miss marshall never stated what was exactly said in that meeting that the actual transcript of the hearing she provided her own characterization stating that jill brown said in that meeting it's her characterization of what was said in that meeting and we went over the area of law earlier where the distinction distinctions in language are razor sharp razor thin here in terms of what's a lawful statement what's in d last point here very briefly this goes to distributing union literature first c f c admits that ellen peterson mistakenly sold to employees they could not put a table display out in the cafeteria that that where there was a disparate force of a policy and it was not shown to be lawful based on isolated ations so our position is that c s c slipped up in its policy of forcing it and just as a united way was to come in and set up a table  the foreground of the end where it took down certain pro union materials from areas of the hospital however c m c did have a general practice of removing non business related material from certain areas of the hospital certainly not all areas of the hospital materials or when these violations occurred or what the rituals actually were so once again there's substantial evidence issue that was not vetted here and you've gone over your time i do wan difference the border has found the use of the word intimidation to be lawful in certain contexts but in this context because the letters themselves being pressured to sign a card with your was equating a physical confrontation with threats and intimidation and to work on that to be lawful but here we have the equation of asking someone repeatedly which can be annoying to sign a card feel that you continue to be heresy and continue religious back to be merciless to the in the patient here larry i don't remember any arguments below about this actually being that they just made up the hospital made out of whole cloth that this relates to solicitation and the patient care area well i don't have that isn't it if that's the case that it wasn't responsive to the question and they were answering three questions i don't have that there is nothing on this record where they presented evidence that people what they were actually concerned about was the station in the patient the e mail itself says that's what the hospital was concerned about hospital telling the nurse you cannot be solicited while you're performing your job and you can tell them to leave you alone and if they if you continue to the nearest meaning while you're working according to the hospital you can come see us and i just don't see that particular formulation was not how it was argued to the board and that is not part of the board's decision so the board is only is not looking at she never said she did not call people she always said that she may call which she had to do as you know on this record all the time all the chargers and team leaders are routinely having to call fill the holes in the schedule or the inconsistent sisco men are with the managers so there are two different managers who say that she told me she called people and nobody's coming in there other managers to say she that the able j just found that they didn't meet their right mind burke you have to show that you would have had to take this action even in the absence of her  he would have taken the same action and they also found they did not make the ship the comparative evidence they put on shows that they typically go through their usual progressive discipline process there's evidence of people being rude and profane and yelling and throwing charts and those people most will counseling and prior hoardings and individual improvement plans before being suspend his story that would justify a verbal warning that we didn't have about the demotion but i think that on this record the l g s findings are completely valid where she went from  the managers initially said she was flippant and that changed before she was devoted to her making and i've seen gesture and there's no evidence that she actually made the obscene gesture that there is testimony about her being slits in their e mails that say she was flippant and then suddenly she's demoted or obscene gestures and there's just not enough evidence to justify a diversion on  this is an exemplary employee for years with very good evaluations and new discipline and so the union campaign started and suddenly she has a bad attitude and is  protective concerted activity if we're to lose the protection of the act he would have to do something egregious what he did was talk about an issue that the nurses that talked about that the nurses that raised the other managers and he did not bring up those who nurses names the manager first said thank you all for taking breaks and i specially want to mention this to managers at that point he felt like he needed to say in a staff meeting that these discussing common problems was expected that he himself it was used to take breaks because he didn't feel that his critical care patients were safe and he needed to bring it to the standards that this was a common problem other nurses that had the manager made the judgment that to bring that up in that sort of setting was going to cause all sorts of negative repercussions which is easy to imagine why couldn't mr carson just come privately and it was the public nature of the of the claims that was the cause for concern that a manager isn't allowed to do that to say we can talk privately about this but i this isn't the type o place to say the things that you're saying it's wrong that i think just on this record because this particular issue you have been talked about so much and was so important to them but this was about the safety i think it was the scott marrs not only responded to her she brought their names up so their names are out there and i think just because on this record there was evidence that those two particular interest this had been discus among the other care nurses before that this was something that was very important to them and that was the kind of conversation that should happen that the staff mean we're discussing whether or not you can take breaks say there was no with this is an accurate statement of the of the incident and then i would also just mention that the issues for mr marson the issues with these two nurses this was