board we took the position the employer that he proposed to you know it was inappropriate that we had other professionals working in the clinic who should be included in  you know and therefore we have to various procedures as you know contested it further and by testing the certification and so here we are and the main basis for dispute and this decision by the board is the fact that it's not following its own guidelines as you recall for many years specially health care was the standard in the terminating bargaining units before the  b that case was overturned by a case called p c c structural and twenty seven team and it changed the standard in many ways and in particular  requires of the board now in making its determinations on these unit issues is that they do a much more robust and i want to be distinctions between those thing we ask only when it was an arbitrary and capricious or and reason for them to think to conclude on this record that they had explains some of that to the same degree as their president  and again this is you know two years after p c c had issued urban all sorts of guidance issued internally with the board they just didn't do it or they didn't do their job they unit outside the bargaining unit and then come to conclusion or eight statements regarding who's going to be and who's going to be out and stir instead of saying look you know this issue is important in terms of the distinction between the two groups and it's important in this context privies reason they didn't do that they went to the they went to be over format which frankly when i worked for the board i was as guilty as anybody were similarities again weighing the cases say you have to weigh the similarities and the disparities there's no way here and there's no analysis and that's there are a number one concern in this case is that they simply did not do that it's a very summary analysis you know they harp on quite a bit in this situation about the fact that the nurses and specialized training distinct from the other houses but nobody if they didn't say that was because they had specialized training it was because they had different specialized training there were differences in their specialized training that gave them different roles in the medical care process i don't i don't think we only i don't think we'll be able to say it was arbitrary because they just said they were specialize well i know but there's a cumulative effect of the fact that you know again your decision itself talks about not self evident that the nurses specialized training is different than the social worker specialist right yeah i think so but why is that why does that make a difference that's what p c c says you have to do you have to you have to say ok there's different specialized training why does that make a difference for including or executing those folks in the burgundy that's the key and once and once you get that concept in your head you understand why this analysis  analysis on pages five and six so he pointed to me so i have the best example on pages five to six of where they did the type of analysis they didn't just say you know this is different from that but that difference matters because would you be able to point to me just so i have that letter so i think i'll make it more concrete for me if i have a better sen you i have one of the question if it's you make an argument about risk residual units here the people at the advanced practice practitioners to use the sort of global term you use for the people that weren't included i think they're about the same in number as the nurses here right so why is there a risk of residual you know why couldn't they just do their own you know the good the doing you get an know i mean again i just flip sides of the same point i mean residual units you know there's a lot of factors that come into play regarding doesn't work well having that product especially when you have no other and then we'll give her a little time national labor relations board i think i just want to start with just backing up and we put this in our brief but i really think it warrants highlighting that and i'm sure the court is aware of this again i'm just going to highlight it that the decision here is that there are ends were an appropriate unit and i think sometimes lost in this discussion is could there have been a better unit or could these people be in the unit but i think the focus i just want to make sure all the time even if i misspeak all the time that the focus is on that the board made a determination that's uniquely within its province right i mean this is a uniquely board determination that the nurses in this non acute care facility were an appropriate unit so i wanted to start as i said i'm sure the court is well aware of that we put that in our brief but i do think that the entire case has to be viewed through that prism i think and beyond what we've put in our brief unless the court has of the questions i feel like i would just be reiterating what we put in our brief we expect list the board walk through the distinct interests i think it's also been forgotten a little bit in the briefing that the board is not writing on a clean slate this regional director was not starting from scratch there we got to go back thirty five years for the health care rule two years where the data codified in that and then beyond that there's the thirty years after that of precedent and i think your honour's right i am fortunate just trying to pull up the mean but i mean the internet is in my house so i'm going to have to go just on memory but it's not my recollection in boeing that the core answer that the board goes through and lists all the factors and says this is important because this is important because this difference is important because rather than that is i don't again it's my recollections and if i'm wrong i'll stand corrected on boeing so but i don't think that the board in bone wayne did anything different than what the board did here except in an analytical sense certainly in a written sense they didn't write the board here lean heavily into precedent and relying on cases that frankly set forth what all these differences are why these interests are distinct and that that satisfies and the nd prong of community interest and heard that they are sufficiently distinct from the other people trying to be included in the unit the excluded employees so i don't i think really the only difference here between boeing in the analytical sense between boeing and what the board did here is they again not writing on a clean slate they just leaned into precedent and cited the five of the most on point five cases and frankly i'm unaware of any case that is more of that i'm not aware of any case beyond the five that the board of sites that are more on point certainly the employer when it filed its request for review going to file their post here in brief they've cited cases they're predominantly the same cases that are cited to the court and they are frankly not a political so the board i think did exactly the same as it did in boeing has ever said i think you did the same in both cases to answer your honor's question reverted to its precession healthcare standards so if the standard is in play and the court for some reason does something in peace and structural zz that calls into question the board reverting to a pre specialty healthcare standard to do anything but the standard th interests of excluded employees and the rd full paragraph they start analyzing you know some of the shared interest in the state interest and then you go over to the next column the next paragraph  contrast so again they're starting to analyze the distinctions between the two groups it's not simply a laundry list it's being laid out about it that in this case well i say the differences that i mean is a little hard to transpose the words because they were finding the group here and they didn't there but they said yeah sure there are some things that they have in common but they are not they don't outweigh the fact play and most of those are even addressed ok this looks to me like a list of factors that are in it are out just like that one is maybe a longer list i think if i don't see the analysis i thought your objection was not that