two thousand when i sent a letter to mr lopez saying you can register irrespective of this fine issue i'm sorry to interrupt you i want to read along with you where you and your actress page ninety three to bottom began in august of one thousand nine hundred nine when someone named person told mr lopez that as to his dues they would be credit against the fine he goes into the local in january of two thousand and two two to pay is his dues he talks to the office manager woman and kim taylor and raises this question her she's the office manager and she says to him no you you pay your dues you can still register you can still go to work it's not a problem that was the any money he tendered would be applied against the fine balance when lopez protested that he would not be able to work taylor presented a copy of cole's letter that's a letter from the international secretary treasurer and assured him that working would not be a problem at lopez's request taylor provided with a copy of cole's january third letter and then lopez left without making any payment for in fact registering to work on that day and that letter that was very clear that he could work is part of the record at page three was a letter addressed to james buckner of the financial secretary early in january saying you can told in january did he need to do is receipt to to take a job the answer that is the board found that the union's policy was to have a dues receipt but the board does not assert that that was unlawful or improper excerpt of the record which is you remember what happened was he sent a letter to the international union in late july protesting what was going on saying he knew that the got when he comes in later and pays the news on march twenty second quote prominently reflected that is does we're still paying only through october ninety nine right so you're saying you can resent this receipt to say he's overdue and his delusions don't get work the dispatcher can then inquire what the story is what is the problem is he entitle this batch but mr lopez knowing that it was this question never sought to register and present that problem to the union saying can i be referred or not that he would not be able to register ever be dispatched and remember the office manager tells him it's not a problem you can be dispatched you can work the board finds it the judge found it and i didn't get that far but the board in decision which issues after the mystery of law judge issues a decision makes the same finding that she tells him you can work yet in january when he's told that he doesn't seek to register he doesn't seem to and are fully raised phrase in incorrect as applied to him simply says that if you go suspended you won't be eligible for parole keep in mind that he was never suspended the board found that there was no evidence he was ever suspended so he certainly had to have in his mind a question and that's all i think i have to convince this court is that the board's finding that it was unequivocal to him is not supported by the record because he's told to the contrary in january he comes to the local in march and never raises a question doesn't seek to register he gets but there is a letter of april seventeenth that says if you go suspended you can register the letter says if you have any questions reasonably have caused lopez to doubt right at the response but we know what's in the record he's been told by the office manager that notwithstanding this he could still work and we know that he made no effort to inquire about and then we know in late july when he finally writes the international not the local union doesn't send a copy of union he says the international you've told me i can work the local doesn't seem to be following along relying only on butler's letter what's the story and the board that he was on notice this they had to be a doubt in his mind given the fact what the office manager told him given the fact that in march he would never raise the issue and given the whole circumstances which leads me to the second point in this whole case it seems to me the real reason he wasn't registering was in fact because beginning in one thousand nine hundred ninety and extending to at least july of two thousand mr lopez was seriously and that he was still suffering from that illness in july of two thousand and i can't stand here imagining that anybody would imagine that someone could work as a welder on the ground or ten stories or twenty stories up if you have memory loss anemia heart would be working as an ironworker but the they just cut you off but at the late a point he allowed additional questioning on disability didn't allow for additional questioning about the status of mister of his actual substantial evidence and you cannot you can search the record and there's no place was soaked or lopez said that in april may june or july i could have gone to work i thought i could work my health was such that i could hear anything in the that footnote on page ninety three they rely on this export packing company case where it worker was a deaf mute and work for a packing company and then the successor comes and doesn't fire him because of union activity and says th union for disability under the pension and health and welfare plan and his doctor certifies that he is disabled at least pending through april three of two thousand the record shows  couldn't work register because he didn't have a good card his testimony is his testimony was never because he was if he said at that point yes i felt fine this is all a lie he would have understood the fraud of what he's done so he was he never said your honor i could have worked with these illnesses had subsided he simply said in response to my question in his sworn affidavit to the board he was sure the board in july was still suffering from these illnesses but he never said you can search the record mr fleischer can i can search it he never said by june july august i felt well enough to go back to work and none of these illnesses w column the board says he testified that he could have taken a job at that time and quote they would have torn up the disability that's that's right but when you read what the what the board says is parroting his words which is th pension if he goes to work would tear up his disability because then they're not going to pay him disability he doesn't say and just took conclude this when that question is in the record your honor and you can find it  he specifically asked that question and he says yes they would tear it up but he does not say and i was prepared to go back to work i was healthy enough to go back to work and that's from the judge cut me off because i was going to pursue that further asking as of tried to use their collection where they have a union security cause threaten the person's job which you can't do now the question now i would no first but that we are as far as the violation is concerned we are talking about a narrow time period from the end of a brawl until first mr rosenfeld asked you didn't go to the hiring hall the put your name on the out of work was in january two thousand and eight you answer because i could not go to work it would be dispatched out to work anyway even if i was physically able to work judge why won't pez because i have to give them my current do is receipt and then they give me points which many of which are reflected in our brief where the union at least theoretically might have offered evidence but with justify findings contrary to the one disability claim pending before the union them and so the union was on know this that there was an issue as to whether he was disabled or not whether neither e it is also significant but when in november of two thousand lopez finally did register there is no evidence that the union and what do we know about his working when he's referred out we don't know anything actually the record doesn't show what kind of jobs it was referred to but the was motivated by union activity and firing someone that's not enough for the employer just to show that there was some other good reason for firing him it has to show that  four on page three of the board's order where the board writes until that date that is to say until september five respondent had unequivocal informed lopez that he would not be allowed to work because he had not paid dues well i have to say that statement doesn't really hold up even based upon what the board says in the text about the nature of the evidence for example when he goes in to see the office manager in january she says is not a problem now it may be that he had a general impression that there was only a problem and there was some indication that it was never a problem but that  letter that letter on april seventeenth says if you if we do not receive a payment on or before april thirty you will go suspended if your membership go suspended you will not be allowed to work it doesn't say you will not be allowed to work because you haven't paid your dues it says if you're suspended what do i do with this well for weather the weather suggests the suspension would be automatic if they hadn't received the payment of doods which given their fines before dues amount to a payment of his whole fine as well  we were threatening you threatening you with suspension and unless you pay your dues pronto we will suspend you but that doesn't say as of the period up until now when you've not been suspended that you can't work well the other has to be understood that as an objectively reasonable understood that not how an experienced waver warrior whether of understood that well and what i'm after is the board statement in the footnote that says the respondent it unequivocal informed lopez i just don't see unequivocal from well as this point of view even our position is that even if it were somewhat m big you west's the burden of correcting imposed a deadline of april thirtieth and therefore or did not say he couldn't yeah so so the disputed period runs only from april thirtieth till september fifth so your answer to but the office of record and also page fifty three he had been working at the higher working out of a hiring hall for twenty years because the union as far back as anyone knows that they use the exclusive hiring hall on and you can get the job without being referred and through was twenty years of experience that he knew you mr rosenfeld you know you asked mr fleischer about what date we look at and yes if you want to look at some time roughly after april seventeenth when the button and letter was received only that period the boy's case stands a more gets a letter from buckner that says if you have any questions call me we also know on the record that he was never suspended but more importantly from my argument we know that he knows when he gets the butner letter well wait a minute i'm just reading from the board on the a l j found that he was suspended i took exception to board reversed a more right hand corner point three there's no evidence that lopez was suspended the judge found that respondent suspended lopez an exception respondent argues there's no evidence we agree they reversed that finding there was no evidence he was ever suspended oh i'm sorry i'm done and i'm flipping back and forth between the board and the work and given the letter from the international assuring him that he could work thank you thank you thank you very much for a useful arguments on both sides and army vs international association of red structural and normal iron workers is now submitted for decision and we are in adjournment for the day and for that week