factual part of this in looking at the standard it's whether or not her conduct reasonably tended to intimidate or coerce non strikers into what or is it just reasonably and did not cut off her car when she moved over and you know i do that you know there are dangerous highway driving no doubt millions of people in their cars every veteran drive on the the facts here which don't show intimidation to filling that gap with the inherent dangers of highway bright and again no doubt that driving can be dangerous but that's something they ran into him or saw him on the highway or driving through town and followed him but there was no pre determined plan to go after anyone or follow anybody and so miss weaver miss watson didn't have a way to communicate company have any impact on her clean record the border the board and consider those i know the board that i'm asking you about something that should have been considered given that you're supposed to look at the totality the board made conclusions about the ploys intent with respect to another employee should have considered when assessing intent the fact that she had been a thirty nine year employee in just the company and had a clean record i don't think there were any blemishes on it at all no your honor and i don't believe that the union is making the argument that the board should have considered this particular circumstance and in any event there them from passing and getting to this work site ultimately you had to turn off the highway and it took a longer time for him to get to the work site so based on those back to the board to the inference that this wasn't just an annoyance to him or to a reasonable view that it did not conduct so the fact that mispricing was a thirty nine year employee the fact that she may have as mr grant stated decide to do this on the spur of the moment is irrelevant what matters is how a contact and his feelings as to whether or not he was coerced or timid or intimidated in connection with a protected activity as opposed to just annoyed and feeling harassed because he under the act we want to greek lose your ability to proceed to work so the board in many cases has found that simply blocking employers entrance whether whether there's any violence or threat of violence or danger is is permitted prescribed by act so you're saying it doesn't have to be tied to the protected activity or that the protected activity is something broader than the non striking employee continuing to exercise his right to  work i think it can be but i think in most cases it does put the board simply looks at how what impact does that have on the non striker in terms of how that person reacted the situation a reasonable reasonable objection person and here the board is reasonable in finding that a reasonably objective driver would find that when the person when passing into a passing late at high speed is blocked that that would reasonably tend to coerce or terminate them and it in their in he after you know prior to his strength us reasonably see that as a targeted action right to do that she any striker has the right to follow the non striker in the car and her thirty nine your rocker it's very hard it goes to her credibility the fact that in these two other incidents the chase taken under advisement with thanks to all counsel