on a petition for review of an order of the national labor relations board the defendants here are niko asked for help and citywide paving the the issues in the case are whether or not these employers nico and city wide violated section eighty five and one of the national labor relations act by refusing to bargain with the union the union in this case is a local and seventy five dollars and by failing to apply the collective bargaining agreement which was in existence between the union and nico one of the defendants and whether city w violated section eight hundred and eighty two and one of the act by recognizing another local union local one thousand and ten and further whether the complaint was time barred by such intent b of the act may go and citywide are in the business of asphalt restoration in manhattan their primary customer was consolidated edison con ed its collective bargaining agreement with local one hundred and seventy five however during that period of time was approximately in two thousand and fourteen when con ed changed the contract they added a provision to the contract that existed for years between nikko and con ed and they put a provision in that any labor which was to be provided well there was evidence and testimony which indicated that on multiple occasions a representative the princip continue working with con ed but only if you use labor that comes from an a f l so you keep coming back to the fact that you had a good reason for violating the law but know there might be evidence to the contrary i don't know but wasn't there evidence sufficient to support the a l j finding against you yes there was your honor well then where do we go from there was evidence to support it but there was also evidence which indicated that there were negotiations between the principal of nikko and the business manager of local one  on repeated occasions the request was made please gain admission to the b c t c building trades construction union for the greater new york area and we will continue to do work with one hundred and seventy five and it was represented by the by the business manager from all local one hundred and seventy five dollars to the principal of nikko that he would try to gain admission to the building trade union and he never gained admission they even the the and seventy five dollars and the employer association the new york independent contractors association filed a separate lawsuit in the us district court before judge would judge kimba wood alleging an antitrust violation because of the provision that con ed inserted into their contract that required use of only a union that was affiliated with the b c t c and  so there was a lawsuit that was brought by both local one hundred and seventy five dollars and the employer association there were the attempts made by the principal of nikko to have the business manager by whatever means he could gain admission to the building trades construction union and all of those efforts were made the union that nikko then was faced with no other alternative no other alternative other than to seek some other form of relief it was impossible for them to follow the terms of the of the agreement with con edison and consequently  the orange order and unless this court has a need to let you guys let me just ask you though it was so what options were available to the companies when faced with their major client saying you have to deal with thank you thank you i got three minutes thank you your honor early on in the hearing which was conducted by the a l j he asked the same question your honor asked just asked a few moments ago he asked counsel when he understood what the predicament was either you do work using one thousand and ten laborers mr psi just gave a number of options for proceeding within the boundaries of both the contractual obligations and the national labor relations act none of which your client pursued so that it seems to me the  my missing something yes yes your honor but as i pointed out earlier earlier that there were conversations with the business manager of one hundred and seventy five with regard to gaining admission to the b c t c and even during the period prior to the incorporation of citywide paving nico the defendant nico continue to use one so they did everything that they could within their power in order to continue doing work for con ed and city wide again i point out was not created to of a to collective bargaining agreement they signed the collective bargaining agreement with the only union that was able to compete provide labor which would allow compliance with the con ed contract and thank you very much i think we have the arguments will