court my name is eric simon i represent or accept appellant in the case today we asked the court to reverse the decision of the n l r b which directed directs that to provide what was called the home service provider agreement that  had direct t v these names get confusing and hard to pronounce sometimes the board's theory of the record directs that to provide the entire document as opposed to a particular piece of it year was six months later so initially we're just arguing what's the definition of unit work and we've we made a proposal to the union that says that everybody agreed that installation of service of satellite television service is was per se or unit work the real issue was what service is that the set me do down the road would also come within the ambit of marketing it work and to come to develop a reference point for that we said anything wanted any detail is what else they think they want to see that in fact they didn't even go so far as what the board did to say well we want to because we need to see the relevant provisions in the context of everything else to the boy who argues that well that doesn't mean anything they're just trying to process a law but it assumes that the union made a proposal that it itself did not understand which makes no sense at all finally we get to may of two the definition of bargaining unit work now the union says it wants the remains because it wants to assess the level of control that directv slash eighteen c has over direct sac and it is clear that they want to see that information to assess whether there was a joint employee for joint employer relationship under the then board standards under the brown brown and fairest decision and in fact in support of that we refer your honour's to the joint appendix establish the joint employee relationship certainly by name and that's the predicate for the you will be ok and i just make as one clarifying question which is for purposes of your petition for you before us we were not assuming there's confidential information because the board's order with respect to yours notes that there's no claim being made that there was confidential information we did not assert confidentiality for the simple reason that if you sir confidentiality you're required to go share with  says the unit was entitled to see it because in the company that because you need to evaluate in the context need to evaluate the context of the relevant portions which is what we provided within the document as a whole discussed earlier there was a proposal that we first to the h s t without singling out any particular provisions or any specific concepts within that in the union as from the very beginning to see the h s t because of the generalized reference to it in direct such a proposal as to the point that mr simon made when the union made its own counterproposal  was not just acquiescing to having the fleet just in there because afterwards it once again asked for the fleet just again because of the reference to it in the new product lines proposal so this was not an of the union's argument or a request for a to see the document with regards to relevance your honor it's it's true that this is the these third party contracts are on the borderline no because of the proposal itself and the union said as i repeat myself a few times that we want to see that document because it is referenced in the proposal and the union basically found itself before which could become a russian doll contract if you will where you have one collective bargaining agreement and another one that's just inserted in there and that was enough for the board to find that the relevant standard had been met this is the classic question  the if the new products line proposal didn't refer to the h s t as a whole but it just says that something like in the event the employers engage with respect to products or services other than those pursuant to those were all related to two bargaining at work those who were guarding that work but that didn't happen here then this is a very fact based finding if i but i would agree with your honor if there if it was just that and because at no point did direct sat offer to amend modify it narrow its proposal it had it had from the very beginning from the day they sat down to discuss this issue until the you know until the deal jane issued his decision to say ok time out we understand you're nervous about this issue why don't we just say well mend the proposal and we'll make it refer specifically to those few provisions that we've provided to you never at any point to direct sat take the upper tier do that and you can't now say that it didn't understand what the union was asking for you was clear from the very beginning and so you honors i mean i don't want to belabor this unless you have any other questions let me ask you my second what's the substantial evidence of relevancy this essential evidence of relevance is the fact that the first union requested made a request which it has to do and that request was based on the fact that the proposal itself referred to the h s p in general as a whole without identifying any specific provisions within there that were that were relieved of our being at work in therefore the union was left with signing a contract on the assumption that the provisions that directs that have provided to it were the only ones related to scope of work but without knowing that for sure because they had never seen the whole contract anything else we never had an opportunity to respond to that because all you would have seen throughout this until may was we want to document because we want the document and then when you get to may well rather than a concept that means we want to because you referred to the well but that's a very general statement especially when we've given a specific provisions and now the union wants to say we need more i think was a coming on using this is why we need more now maybe it would have been because we don't understand  the relevant information when asked again a question we'd read that the definition of unit work was relevant but that doesn't that's not a concern concession that pricing eighty oppositions everything don't think you have substantial evidence to support the board's decision and direct t v and it contains direct t v confidential business information relating to pricing formulas and practices business practices quality standards incentive structures and it contains links to confidential information held by direct t v as well as directv parent eighteen to the fact of the matter is the board assumes that the h s p did contain confidential information after learning that the board ordered the responded in this case to produce a full and redacted copy of the h s t d t v filed a motion to intervene to reopen the record in order to protect against disclosure that confidential information when was the first it was a very incoherent issue was in november or december of two thousand and sixteen when direct sat had a discussion with representatives of directv saying that they were endeavoring to resolve an unfair labor wonderful but what should have happened is either directv would have received notice that there was a proceeding involved and that there was an issue of the entire h s p being disclosed so it could then of intervened at that time or it could have urged direct sat to try to interpose a confidentiality objection directs the ball well they did they did they did not interpose a that's the case but i can't i can't i just don't know what the record is in terms of their business the firm yeah but but in terms of their incentive is one would have thought there would have been notice that the reality was there was no no the right and in the nor was there any inquiry from your the the direct t v thought that the matter of been resolved because the last communication they had with direct consider context of the the first thing is that would then mean that direct t v would have an obligation to monitor the bargaining of its contractors to monitor the legal proceedings that is contractors are involved and in ad it relied on the possibility that its contractor would inform of the particularized issues involving h s p it certainly was not reasonably on notice that it would be required to intervene  it was not a notice that directs that would not interpose what would seem to be an obvious objection to the disclosure of the information namely that it contained confidential information that certainly was not a notice that the board would finally got the case in order requiring disclosure of the entire room but it sounds like you might have a claim against her accent but in terms of the board's conclusion as to whether you should be allowed to that to ninety eight i guess we'll see directv admits that as early as november december twenty sixth it discussed with the spot of the possibility of the latter would produce information contained in the h s p in order to resolve a more charge signal everybody should know that the question is would inferences you draw from that communication and whether you can extrapolate from that communication this entire process that played out before the n l r b in our argument is that it's not reasonable to do that and what what the labor board has done is they've elevated that timeliness concern essentially to overcome the confidentiality interest that direct t v seeks to protect they made that the dominant consideration rather than a consideration of the nature of the motion to intervene in the first place the purpose so the motion to intervene and what impact it would have on the present what your honor the board does not abide by rule twenty four but what rule twenty four does is provides a thoughtful body of law where courts of address these kinds of issues in a set of standards courts have considered in determining whether motions to intervene should be granted the overarching point for direct t v is it has a confidentiality interest in the information in the age s p and there is no way it can protect against disclosure of that information in the rule twenty four said and it's it's very likely that it would have been able to obtain relief at the forum been required for the agreement to actually be effective one is notice from direct sad about an inquiry request or demand by a governmental authority to provide the h s p or taking an appeal yes your honor and there are cases to that effect cited in our brief and those cases are referred to in the board's boeing decision yet i thought they were all they were not all for purposes of taking the you know they were for purposes of intervening to protect an interest that the existing parties could not protect by by not necessarily your honor one of those was a successor case was are you want to reopen the record your honor i don't know the answer that question and i have eight second allow intervention from the context i think there were there was it me it may be possible that the record was and reopened because these were issues that would not have been  clear in that case and in all the cases surveyed in boeing was that that that party's interests were not and could not have been adequately represented by the existing parties to the us case before the board in this case the board found in addition as an alternative to the un timeliness finding that director was fully capable of adequately representing direct whether great he was on notice or not it's interesting as i was as i was coming here i realize that there's probably some problem with mr sellars affidavit mr seller says that the first dr the first conversations december twenty fifth seen so i don't know either direct sat provided those documents without discussing it with directv which i find it highly unlikely or directv no new actually here before already that there somehow did not know that the confidentiality of the you just he was at risk given that he knew that request was made and i wanted to make a point as to  there were neither mr carter nor myself have been able in our seventy pages of peace to find a single case where this court granted a post judgment motion to intervene and the party was seeking to reopen the record and remember the gate case not only that but even less when that party was already already when there was an existing party at the underlying proceeding was in the present that party's interest simply has not been found in fact in the door this court said that basically the closer you get to a final judgment or to a very complex trial the higher the prejudice for the existing parties to proceed to allow somebody to intervene in this case it was after a final decision the only thing we meaning was this proceeding right here what has been broken well the prejudice your honor it would be the the board's order is not a judgment those board orders are not self executing it's this court that has the authority to turn that into a judgment that can be enforced secondly when the motion to intervene was a biled which is to say that  one of the considerations that should be taken to into account is the extent to which granting the motion intervene would prejudice the existing parties and while in fact it might prejudice the union because there's further delay let's be clear about how narrow this issue is it relates to the h s p and it relates to the confidential information contained in the each as p and it is conventional in the labor relations where there's a clash between what needs to be disclosed that itself considered it and taken it in camera view of the document in question that's not it's not an unheard of process to consider whether something is confidential or not and a lot to be sure there would be additional delay i'm not certain how significant it would be and how much prejudice it would be is there not like a bargain i have no idea you're  the few seconds i have remaining i'd like to conclude with an emphasis on detroit and it's and once it's determined that the information is confidential the necessary draw from detroit edison is of the board was required not to disserve that interest in this case it did deserve that interest by not taking into account directv confidentiality interest instead resolving the issue on collateral for us thank you thank you now the pieces thank you