please the court jared cantor on behalf of the national labor relations board your honor the union just was decrying that the board has created a rule here but then i also understood him to say that there should be some bright riley rule here that five minute should be a cut off and i think that the discussion that just preceded me speaking illustrates the extent to which the whole sequence of events has to be looked at that the board talks about the totality of the circumstances of talks about the particular circumstances here and that it was not finding it specifically rejected the contention that it was creating a person a rule here that any amount of time of blocking is going to be an unfair labor practice what it was looking at is we have a year of this organizational picketing going on i made times did they block this blocked for two i mean i haven't added up all the minutes but i think it adds up to several hours potentially worth of delay over these ten day and then and then it stopped the record discloses that during the course of litigation the union decided to stop with its deliberate blocking and i want to be clear the board's decision here is not does not give the drivers of cars a license to just drive through the picketers because they want to leave the board's decision is that where the unions admitted purpose is to annoy and to draw attention to themselves that they cannot and the board talked about this in the dell cardcase the local nine hundred eighteen case that the union cannot get to itself the right to determine when and how long that people are going to be delayed to pass that in this is that important point here about the board not creating a rule it's not that the sensually some car came up and for safety considerations they stopped the car while the people cleared the crosswalk just like you would for a normal pedestrians the driver stops make sure the pedestrians are no longer in the crosswalk in would go here the whole point is to stop the cars and then to go around and around and around and as the record shows we have one to two minute intervals all the way up to some four minute intervals and it's deliberate and it was  repeated both during each one of these days sometimes and then over again over the course of these ten days i haven't added up the number of incidents either but it's several dozen was there ever any balance in any of these picketing that the board understood occurred well the board's decision in this was talked about earlier i should divide  the board decision to not mention i guess it depends what the meaning of violence would be there are instances talked about where drivers were getting aggravated and accelerated dangerously towards the picket line when they were started growing frustrated that they couldn't leave i don't know local law whether that would be considered a criminal offense really criminal act but there's that instance there are the instances that were discussed about numerous cars driving the wrong way in this one way port koshare to exit in the record does disclose a few other instances that i think supports the board's finding here about the particular circumstances so the company security officer testified to an incident where i guess in a picture got in a tussle over a picket sign in a police officer ended up being hit while they were one of the unions captains testified to someone pouring a water on him out of the hotel and so this was certainly at the very first date that we talk about that august eighteenth day where you have that's the one where there's a hundred sixty some picketers you have three picket lines going across the street at the entrance and the exit and that kicks off the whole board's findings here that when you look at all of these dates and everything that was going on the union would like to portray this and i think they talk about it says run of the mill picketing and that there was nothing else going on here that would be restraining or co and i would respectfully submit that not just obviously the blocking is very supportive of the board's finding and essentially all these facts are undisputed and then you add in everything going on with the chanting in the  bullhorns these other instances of guests behaving rationally or potentially violently that there i would certainly submit was tension in the air that this was not a day at the beach for at this hotel for essentially a year and then some whenever these were going on i think and the union accuses the company of calling the police to some type of bootstrapping method but i would respectfully push back on that and say that that was very prudent and warranted here and the fact that the union doesn't think that the police were necessary i think doesn't really count in the sense of the fact that they were there and that they didn't come and then just say this is ridiculous and leave finding yes or no i mean i think that the chief decisions we would rely on and we talk about them are brief are the local union number seventeen case that's the hertz one where during the course of a strike related picketing that was over several months there were numerous occasions and again in the intervals there were five to ten minutes and there were three incidents of thirty to forty five minutes  i would then point to the local nineteen the dell card case in it's important in that case that there are essentially three different sites that were being picketed there so you have to kind of look at each one because each one of those was a separate violation and so at the card employer location there were five dates where we have numerous vehicles blocked and the average range there was three to five minutes we have  location where there was one date and only two vehicles are blocked and that was in those were only ten to thirty seconds that they got there they weren't letting them through and then they left to call the police to then let them get through and then at the third location the strong one we only have one date where we have an employee driven vehicle being blocked and then a van was blocked and again that's that three to five think it was four minutes for that location exactly these cases honor and then the last one i would just briefly is the international local sixty seven where we have two employees block between two and three minutes we have a manager blocked four times for between three and five minutes and then we have another employee block one time for three to five minutes and so you know as an appellate lawyer it's always great if you have a case that has every single fact that it in front of you but that is i would submit the burden of appellate judges an appellate lawyers is that we never have or very rarely do we have that one perfect case because if i did have that one perfect case then generally we don't wind up in the courts that that once a party loses in front of the board they accept that but here the board's decision again undisputed facts supported i think and i would argue and submit that it is comfortably jurisprudence in this area in fact a decision not to find a violation here would i think really stick out going accepting the union's arguments this would be an if there are no further i have to one question is is there a reason for if there is a crowded area that it might come out differently than if it's in a hotel way out some places all by itself that is what was what was it what did the board find was the crowding situation in this instance where a lot of vehicles around is a very busy part of town i think though the point there would just be that the traffic backed up that that that and that goes to the fact that employees even when they're not being blocked are witnessing the effects of the unions conduct and so certainly in an in an isolated location maybe there there wouldn't be traffic backs up traffic back ups but here where there's a one way street and you are especially on that first state where you're preventing there were preventing cars from getting into the hotel that that was a direct result of that i thin thank you your honors to address the cases that mr cantor cited the board cases with the brief picketing delays those are all situations where there was a strike being conducted by the union and a strike fundamentally changes the calculus with respect to section seven of the act and therefore with respect to section eighty one a employees have a section seven right not to participate in a strike in other words to break the strike and when the union blocks strike breaking employees from coming to work that's really a direct restraint on their section seven rights the union may not like it but they've chosen to come to work and that's what was the purpose of the picketing of course the hotel  coerce the employees to do on the union the purpose of this picketing here your honor was not to coerce anyone it was organizational picketing it was to share a message with the hotel  recognize them your honor those picket signs advised the public that this hotel had no contract with the union and so it was it was what's called organizational picketing it was to buoy the strength of the  pro union employees and also to advise the public that there was no it was a nonunion hotel so you've got to look at section seven and the rights of those employees who are affected the section seven rights it doesn't have to do with traffic congestion it doesn't have to do with dumping water on the picketers by hotel guests which are matters of local concern and that's really the issue here is that the board has not shown which section seven rights of the valley employees were affected thank you thank you thank you both for the argument this morning united here local five versus the n l r b is submitted our next case for