to what this case means what a firm wins would mean i think there are three or four foremost issues that i would address with your honor's first of all it sort of jumped to the end of the story affirming this what would it me it would mean that you would affirm the order of the labor board for some place to return to employment an employee with favor po public passengers also coworkers and in one instance a grumpy police officer so what would happen if you three justice otherwise give him have been twisted and distorted by v a oded in his ruling is a totally inconsistent and it leaves you with how could he come to the witness is adverse to pace judge clifford gave him credit in many instances that same witness to the extent adverse to  statue evidence standard is not nearly as exacting a standard as a manifest weight standard it's also been explained that because the weight of evidence and the credibility of the witnesses are uniquely within the province of the agency there need only be some competent evidence in the destroy states are limitations and again he went to face and you're correct your honor that it's effect a state but he goes to fix because we use them in progressive discipline that he could go back to a similar event four years prior to her most recent terminations and drag everything forward and that is destroyed that would destroy the statue limitations we have no statutory way because he was made up there while there is less in the case and says you can take a hit a statute of limitations and ignore it six years seven years four years five years later that's that's a leap of faith into the mind of ms panic i ask you that is not proper the record is she gave you a lease the record is by stipulation that with one written to me and related to the bad k in two thousand and the hearsay somewhat hearsay testimony of michael lacey bet he got along with them but others didn't and somewhat miss pena koski testifying about how this guy was a pain to everybody the point is la and judge griffin said he agreed he credited those independent witnesses and included way you can be a pain in the behind scuse my german but you don't have  you don't have any exposure you shouldn't to a discourteous and screaming pace bus operator investigated with pace managers and withdrew the grievance saying she had been not only treated fairly but the pay so they could appropriately and judge clifford use that against us saying we should have  motives to pays based on protecting activity not and concerted protect protect their ok protected activity but under the same type of analysis by their own the boy's own statements cou fatal so they're all over the place it's a moving target as i suggested and he comes to the conclusion gentlemen that we were all for shifting explanations for things unless really wary he took just absolutely wrong she was terminated her union came to pay said can we go back and pay scale with a chance and she said no because she figured they would use the best  limitations and come back ten years from now you guys may still be oh i know you have a better for everybody but you know it's crazy to make war on a thing here that's in the mind of her what's reasonable and attributing bad more about i'm fixed that are wrong he finds the case managers it could appropriately in a way case end in a confrontation preventable now dead cliff and their points that there's no credible evidence as to why they would have been found preventable again the big big bad employer fixing the case bringing in the same guys with all those preconceived notions they people would paste discipline therefore this is where the case stipulated prior to the hearing were the issues among the issues to be decided in this case weapon so serious would almost be laughable kinds of accusations against her and it's clear as curing officer clifford here found there this was a continuing campaign and that's what this is all about and that's where here enough officer clifford found wealth back she was treated totally differently than anybody else you want to talk about the incident in glenview with where whether that they issued up you can go back and use these quote old incidents as part of what's going on first of all case stipulated that these were issues in the case but they stipulated that these incidents these things that case now says we can't be talking about these more contested issues in the case and when this ever list was introduced about things that happened more than six that the that argument from pace to drugs now to saying well the hearing officer apparently had some grudge against pace i mean that that's what i heard counsel say not more than three minutes ago that the hearing officer had this bias against employers where there's absolutely nothing our support or bad assertion case just can't stand it that the hearing officer in essence has sat there people why they didn't tell the truth and that's what the hearing officer job is to do is to decide when there are conflicting versions of what happened as there were here who's telling the truth counsel says well this thing with with mr wang it was corroborated by two witnesses that's not true there was only one other witness who was call and he had some hearsay statement from somebody else who never appeared and we have no idea who he was or word was that's not admissible and they can't use that disappeared about this this one who did come out and testify number one said she didn't hear anything that arsenal is sad that she doesn't know what she was saying number everybody all the time he wanted to know which bus was supposed to leave first that's ridiculous right there are this posted the schedule and the schedule says ross leaves  cited these incidents from the past which of course pace stipulated would be heard in the case are always admissible as background to show what the relationship that the district supervisor claimed to rely upon for his decision to fire this summary of her record just mysteriously disappear was the basis for her claim just isn't there and always put out his pace getting up and saying she had all these suspensions but that's there's no record there's no document in the and filing other grievances throughout this entire period of time including the fact that they complied with the first award i did that are ok so there's no question that she was engaged in protected activity by filing grievances again and again and again that case knew it but obviously they did that's really not contested and that they discharged her because of for participation in the protected activity in places well we never said that we were telling against her therefore there is no evidence that we retaliate we had some others or something except that the law is that you can look at the actions of a party and give those actions and the reasons city was motivated by intel union analysts and the second one is that the board improperly relied on prelim attention's period evidence and events in support of its findings now the board did not err on either of these points first of all section ten a one of the interfere with restrain or coerce an employee as a result of their protected activity under the act now often you will see derivative actions that is anytime you have a violation of section twenty two it's almost always going to also be a violation of section twenty one that's because you need activities protected activity under the act but twenty one provides this broader protection for other protected activity and that would include filing pursuing a grievance in particularly course pursuing a grievance to to open a word in a successful protect the conduct was a substantial or motivating factor in the adverse action uses the language or their expressing recognizing alternative bases in order to find a violation of section twenty one also addressing an analogous provision in the federal the national labor relations act the united states supreme court recognized that federal act the text employees from the tele tory discharge for their good faith pursuit of a grievance regardless of whether there's any human involvement in regardless of whether there's any purpose in the agreement that decision and now are be versus city disposal systems inc which is said in the briefs they address the claim by a trucker under section eight a one of the federal act and that's the the an analogous provision in the federal act to section twenty one in however on the appeal the supreme court's found that the grievance was still protected activity under the federal act for purposes of his claim under section eight section eight a one regardless of whether of that you know valve meant and more importantly regardless of whether or not his grievance was totally selfish of where an employee has proven that they were discharged for had some other an ad for section as a result of protected activity that there are required to further show and tell unanimous all the quotations they cite all those cases or cases which involve the  e actions are sometimes called hybrid actions that i discussed that is that usually when someone brings us a claim claiming that they were fired or had some other sort of adverse action against them for their union activity they will be able to bring their claim under both claims that the employee was fired for union organizing or some other kind of union activists therefore when they were going over the analysis about what was proven and what kind of circumstantial evidence is necessary they talk about in terms of int limitations period and this to this argument fails for three reasons first of all the board do not rely solely on prepared events in order to find discriminatory motives they also relied upon pieces disparate treatment of panic housekeeping it's unusual in order investigation in february of two thousand and five which in that happened in the weeks prior to the discharge they also then also relied on pieces shifting and the manufactured explanations which were given after should they discharge these are all events within the limitations period the board relied upon its findings of a disparate treatment in a sham investing investigation that took place in the july two thousand and four of gulf millet's it in us also called the glenview incident where there is a access accident bending the mirror on the bus as relevant haste wants to be able to come forward will have employers rely upon prepared events in order to discharge someone and then insulate those events from any kind of meaningful review under the statute of limitations well that brings us the final officially illegal collective bargaining agreement and the claim was that that enforcement of the collective bargaining agreement constituted unfair labor practice under the federal out so early cuz prior to the limitations period its execution that is  original execution to green that had violated the at the court there was no claim of intentional or any discrete act of discrimination occurring for england occasions period it was just century an operation of law saying this is an illegal effect of a prior illegal since local lodge other federal courts have reaffirmed that the national labor relations board that's the federal board can ride upon prepared events to prove their employers timely challenge conduct was illegally motivated and we said to these cases in our brief some some occurred during the site prior to the limitations period but it also recognized f in reaching that holding that employee could rely on the same conduct the ledge misconduct of the union they happen prepared that it could challenge in its own action to support his other actions as he also in the house and challenge their actions like a failure to take the grievance to appeal that occurred within the limitations period of the court's pacifically said page three three six that those allegations could be used as evidence to within the limitations period therefore there was nothing inappropriate about the board and the ministry of rajaji considering to prepare a conduct conduct from incidences that case and put it in by raising them as justification briefly just first respond to mr jim petro he said that they had built a file there was a synopsis that disappeared you know we have to build probably because we're challenged it is true that the original wing incident pays found she didn't leave right she without even being told specifically it was mr wang then when and confronted him that's where she got the discipline for the first one it's another red herring right to use those because we're not bound by statute of limitations it's a different standard there's a contractual limitation but otherwise we're going to use them and we're here to make our case we bury for not unanimous he said just therefore there is no evidence that any discredit disparity of treatment is to complaints reflects a pattern based on protected union or concerted activity either one and that's just not there it's just not there