either nonunion work to another union if it did not reach a contract that would make it competitive it's fought economic relief that was denied three kinds did try to rescind discrimination notice after the contract expire november and the bricklayers denied that although recently just signed a contract with the bricklayers in late december the i p t w had begun doing the work that is now in dispute this led to grievances from a bricklayer's a lawsuit claiming breach of contract which is pending in the central district in awaiting the outcome of this ruling and refund began to receive complaints about the i p w doing the work is the rule protecting the construction industry reconnaissance construction industry contractor is allowed to enter into collective bargaining agreements under section eight ass of the national labor relations act this is distinct from other industries there is no proof of majority support from employees required and when it contract expires recount is free to walk away the board has issued a ruling in the in the eighty's called john decker one tons which is really the guiding principle on this and in two thousand and three there was a case in the the section eight of the national labor relations act which the board ignored really provides guidance here the board was actually in the plumbing ignoring the impact of section eight f in a representational dispute in nova and the court properly called upon board's decision should be for you for the any other errors in the board's decision we pointed out the factual errors but we are of the belief that if the factual errors which board made are resolved one way or the other they don't affect the result because the work preservation distinguishable cases here there is a reasonable plus for t d under the national labor relations act section ten k the supreme court has commanded the board to they've empowered and directed the board to resolve these disputes when presented under section ten k provided if there is operative section eight before the conduct of either a threat or picketing there are competing claims which we have here and if there are no alternative means to resolve the dispute there is no privy between all parties to provide alternative means to resolve this dispute this is not particularly for the court to harmonize section eight after the construction industry and section ten k because the reality is the construction industry the need to assign work and the right to walk away from  charge party has never performed the wor mine and one of them had structure and picketed for the work will be much closer to the facts of most of the other ten to cases where employers caught in the middle even though maybe the employer credible avoided it by signing to work thank you case i want to make clear that no the punning case is the d c circuit is in part recalled reversing the national labor relations board has absolutely nothing to do with this case it was a representation case and the question that the nine any contract or contract where the union represents the majority has been authorized to represent the majority of the employees it has nothing to do with the jurisdictional dispute it has nothing to do with anything like that it is merely  about can you look to the language of the contract itself to determine whether it's eight f or nine a or do you have to go beyond that into other evidence that you explain my data after i'm sorry your honor in it under the national labor relations act with a couple c one fifty eight act and what that says is in the construction industry the union can represent the bargaining unit without showing majority support in the reason for that the reason congress created that special rule pool for skilled labor in that situation with that employee complement changing all the time it's it's not always easy to determine the majority and it allows the union to represent workers even if there is no majority there by giving the contractor a skilled labor pool that can you can sign a contract with the union to provide workers through the hiring hall and then whenever he's workers one at a job coming up the union will send it workers  charged union the one that didn't threaten to picket and didn't pick and didn't strike or anything raised to work preservation argument in the board found in its favor on the work preservation argument in this court concerned the other stage employees very important union here in los angeles in that case the non charged party raised the work reservation argument the board evaluated that argument and found as a point of fact that they those two cases make absolutely clear that their fundamental argument their fundamental legal argument is just wrong now with my remaining time i'd like to discuss why their fundamental factual argument is wrong in the fundamental factual maintenance and renovation operations of the company the problem with that is that is what the contract covers just so cause it does not say what particular work must be  contract it is the broadest management rights cause i've ever seen in my years of practice and it basically says that everything that the company could do before it can still do and it specifically cites job  of the contract that specifically addresses job simon says the company can do whatever it wants i'm running out of time but i want to just cite a little more evidence that provide substantial evidence for the board's conclusion that the i q she w contact did not require a response to a sign of any when they say the contract requires us to assign everything to the i p t w two to the altitude of you and i'm running out of time i have forty nine seconds to the last thing i'd like to say is one more piece of evidence in the in the record in this unrebutted in the reassignment of work he could break it off at any time so he could break it off at any time then the i p t w does not have a contractual plane for that work if you can break it off at any time there is nothing in the i p t w contract