[00:00:02] Speaker 02:
The final case on calendar this morning is National Labor Relations Board versus Air

[00:00:49] Speaker 02:
Good morning, counsel.

[00:00:51] Speaker 01:
Good morning, your honor.

[00:00:52] Speaker 01:
May I please the court?

[00:00:53] Speaker 01:
I'm Mike Murphy for Respondent Air Gas USA LLC.

[00:01:02] Speaker 01:
The National Labor Relations Board committed three dispositive errors in this case.

[00:01:08] Speaker 01:
The first was on the predicate finding of a well-established and automatic system of giving wage increases.

[00:01:17] Speaker 01:
As the D.C.

[00:01:18] Speaker 01:
Circuit

[00:01:19] Speaker 01:
stated in advanced life systems the same facts and arguments about the character of an employer's past Pay increases is dispositive of both These allegations whether they're brought under 8a3 or 8a5 No, you're not but the inquiry Well, but but it

[00:01:45] Speaker 01:
But, Your Honor, it is as positive because you cannot make the 8A3 finding without finding the same predicate fact as you need to find for the 8A5.

[00:01:56] Speaker 02:
I know you're saying that fact, but I just wanted to make sure that you weren't saying that we have to follow the D.C.

[00:02:02] Speaker 01:
Circuit.

[00:02:02] Speaker 01:
Of course not.

[00:02:03] Speaker 01:
No, Your Honor.

[00:02:06] Speaker 01:
They said it so eloquently that it was worth quoting.

[00:02:09] Speaker 02:
So the first one was the systematic wage increase, the second- That's right.

[00:02:14] Speaker 01:
The second was because they brought it under 883 instead of 885, they have to follow the right line analysis for proving discrimination by the employer.

[00:02:25] Speaker 01:
And they erred by not finding the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board did not meet

[00:02:41] Speaker 01:
Her burden approved by preponderance of the evidence to show the employer had unlawful anti-unanimous when it made this decision.

[00:02:49] Speaker 03:
So in terms of the established practice, right?

[00:02:52] Speaker 03:
Yeah.

[00:02:53] Speaker 03:
So we have, it seems to me like the key evidence here is from Mr. McFarland's testimony about how he decided on the wage increases.

[00:03:03] Speaker 03:
And there's competing inferences that you could draw from that.

[00:03:11] Speaker 03:
And I think it is certainly open to the interpretation that you are offering.

[00:03:16] Speaker 03:
But in order to win, you need to show that the board's contrary interpretation was not supported by substantial evidence.

[00:03:26] Speaker 03:
Given what I think is fair to describe as somewhat conflicting evidence, how do you want us to say that?

[00:03:37] Speaker 01:
Well, I don't think there was conflicting evidence.

[00:03:40] Speaker 01:
I think there were just confusing evidence that needs to be sorted through and some math needs to be done.

[00:03:47] Speaker 01:
But I don't think there's conflicting evidence.

[00:03:51] Speaker 01:
Even the board in its decision couldn't come out and state that there was an automatic process by which employees would understand who's getting an increase and how much based on what criteria.

[00:04:05] Speaker 01:
They couldn't say that without adding

[00:04:08] Speaker 01:
with a few exceptions.

[00:04:10] Speaker 01:
We're talking about fewer than 20 employees in any one of these given years that everyone is analyzing to determine what this past practice was, what this established working condition supposedly was.

[00:04:21] Speaker 01:
And if you take the board literally to say a few, let's say two, that's 10% plus of the population we're talking about.

[00:04:31] Speaker 01:
The National Labor Relations Act is administered by frontline managers and workers on a day-to-day basis.

[00:04:38] Speaker 01:
a case law that so undermines the Supreme Court precedent in NLRB v. Katz by constantly whittling away at this definition of automatic, of established time periods, established amounts, or at least established criteria by which you can predict these wage increases.

[00:05:01] Speaker 01:
They've decided cases like Omni where every single employee

[00:05:08] Speaker 01:
They might have received different amounts, but there were only a total of two or three amounts.

[00:05:13] Speaker 01:
And every single person got it, and you could predict.

[00:05:16] Speaker 03:
So I was going to ask you about Omni.

[00:05:17] Speaker 03:
Do you think that Omni is wrong?

[00:05:20] Speaker 01:
No.

[00:05:20] Speaker 01:
OK.

[00:05:21] Speaker 03:
I don't.

[00:05:21] Speaker 03:
But so Omni, the board said there that there has to be regular.

[00:05:28] Speaker 03:
I think that the phrases are regularity and fixed criteria.

[00:05:31] Speaker 03:
But they also said that, this is my phrasing, not theirs.

[00:05:37] Speaker 03:
regularity doesn't have to be all that regular and fixed doesn't have to be all that fixed because if the increases are based on economic conditions, you can have some discretion in exactly how you apply it.

[00:05:51] Speaker 03:
And it seems like that's kind of what McFarland did.

[00:05:54] Speaker 03:
He said, well, we'll give

[00:05:57] Speaker 03:
a dollar an hour to the people with a certain amount of seniority, and then like, you know, depending on how much is in the pot, we'll give some other amount to the other people.

[00:06:06] Speaker 03:
And so why isn't that consistent with the Omni standard?

[00:06:12] Speaker 01:
Well, there may be dicta in Omni that says that, but the facts in Omni are there were fixed times, fixed percentages in one year, and fixed amounts in the other year.

[00:06:23] Speaker 01:
And there were no exceptions.

[00:06:24] Speaker 01:
There were no few exceptions, 10 percent,

[00:06:26] Speaker 01:
Exceptions there were no exceptions at all.

[00:06:28] Speaker 01:
So the facts established that It sure it doesn't have to be an across-the-board Same amount for everyone the way one reading of cats might put it it can be different amounts as long as all of those amounts are fixed and A trip and you can trace how they're attributed to certain employees another lead case from the board anyways Atlantic care management

[00:06:53] Speaker 01:
And there, the fixed criteria was, OK, we've got this five-tier system of granting performance reviews to employees, and there's a percentage amount for the wage adjustment associated with each of those performance reviews.

[00:07:07] Speaker 01:
None of that is present in this case.

[00:07:10] Speaker 01:
There was no tiered system.

[00:07:11] Speaker 01:
There were no fixed amounts.

[00:07:13] Speaker 01:
There were no fixed percentages.

[00:07:16] Speaker 01:
There may have been

[00:07:18] Speaker 01:
It may have been established.

[00:07:19] Speaker 01:
I'm not sure whether it was established under Ninth Circuit precedent, but there were definitely a few years when it was always on October 1st.

[00:07:28] Speaker 01:
That wasn't always the case if you go back five years, and certainly not if you go forward, because there was evidence on the record that it changed again to April.

[00:07:38] Speaker 01:
But this case, this prosecution of air gas, represents taking it too far.

[00:07:42] Speaker 01:
You've got Omni and Atlantic Air establishing how you can use

[00:07:46] Speaker 01:
A formula or use fixed amounts But there's no way to back engineer the data on the record in the air gas case To show what criteria in Scott McFarland used in Those several years before 2018 Council on a slightly different point do you agree that some?

[00:08:09] Speaker 02:
non-union employees were provided the raise that was not given to the union employees?

[00:08:15] Speaker 01:
Absolutely.

[00:08:16] Speaker 02:
And so what are we to make of that fact?

[00:08:19] Speaker 01:
I think that's the employers legal compliance efforts.

[00:08:24] Speaker 02:
How so?

[00:08:27] Speaker 01:
Well, the employer had planned and decided and budgeted for these increases.

[00:08:33] Speaker 02:
For union and non-union alike?

[00:08:35] Speaker 01:
For at the time the decision was made for

[00:08:39] Speaker 01:
Non-union.

[00:08:40] Speaker 02:
Only non-union?

[00:08:41] Speaker 02:
So your representation is that at the time, at this particular time, the company had only budgeted money for wage increases for non-union employees?

[00:08:56] Speaker 01:
This evidence is not on the record, but to answer your question, Your Honor.

[00:08:59] Speaker 02:
Well, my question was, what are we to make of the fact that at the same time as the company was giving

[00:09:07] Speaker 02:
was declining to give union employees the wage increase, a wage increase was given to non-union employees.

[00:09:15] Speaker 02:
That's my question.

[00:09:16] Speaker 02:
What are we to make of that?

[00:09:17] Speaker 01:
Understood, Your Honor.

[00:09:18] Speaker 01:
Thank you for clarifying.

[00:09:21] Speaker 01:
The facts of this case are incredibly important for that question, because these employees were prior to October 2018, non-union employees.

[00:09:35] Speaker 01:
The union, local 848 of the Teamsters in this case, filed an election petition with the government to represent those employees on, I want to say August 28th, if memory serves, the employees voted on September 20th.

[00:09:56] Speaker 01:
The wage increase for the non-union was scheduled to take place on October 1, but the National Labor Relations Board didn't

[00:10:04] Speaker 01:
issue its certification of representation until, if memory serves, October 10th or October 11th.

[00:10:11] Speaker 01:
An employer is not allowed to either announce or make any changes in the workplace to working conditions or terms of employment during the pendency of an election campaign.

[00:10:23] Speaker 04:
Well, but that just takes us back to the Heron Brothers problem, right, that if there were a past practice,

[00:10:30] Speaker 01:
And nothing that wouldn't provide grounds to treat the unionized employees any different if there were if there if there was a past practice of granting automatic Fixed predictable wage adjustments, right?

[00:10:44] Speaker 04:
Which the general counsel has did not carry her burden of proof to establish that by proponents of the evidence Okay, but the in terms of the the work that you need this second theory to do is to whether there wasn't animus without even getting into the statements about

[00:11:00] Speaker 04:
voting union and raises, Aaron Brothers seemed to suggest, first of all, I think four years of raises were an established practice.

[00:11:14] Speaker 04:
And it just plainly says that cats isn't a problem once you have an established practice.

[00:11:20] Speaker 04:
So if there is the practice, then you can't use

[00:11:27] Speaker 01:
cats as a reason to deny the union members if there's an established practice of automatic nondiscretionary wage increases then

[00:11:41] Speaker 04:
I can't remember exactly how you said it.

[00:11:45] Speaker 04:
So it's not a complete defense to the concerns about discriminating against the union to suggest, well, we couldn't give them those raises because of cats.

[00:11:59] Speaker 04:
Is that your argument?

[00:12:00] Speaker 01:
It is a complete defense if there wasn't a practice.

[00:12:05] Speaker 04:
But if there was a practice, it's not.

[00:12:08] Speaker 01:
If there was a practice of non-discretionary fixed predictable wage increases, it's not correct.

[00:12:14] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:12:15] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:12:18] Speaker 01:
And then the third error is even assuming the General Counsel carried her burden of proof to establish by preponderance of the evidence,

[00:12:30] Speaker 01:
that the employer had this established practice of a nondiscretionary wage process and the required, harbored the required animus under right line, which is required for all 83 cases, and this case was prosecuted under 83, not 85.

[00:12:49] Speaker 01:
You have to follow the right line doctrine, which allows the employer to assert an affirmative defense.

[00:12:57] Speaker 01:
In this case, the employer asserted a nondiscriminatory affirmative defense, and it was unrebutted.

[00:13:03] Speaker 02:
What was the affirmative defense?

[00:13:05] Speaker 01:
That the employer was driven by a concern with compliance with the law when it withheld.

[00:13:12] Speaker 02:
The argument you just made about?

[00:13:14] Speaker 02:
Yeah.

[00:13:16] Speaker 01:
OK.

[00:13:16] Speaker 01:
But there was no rebuttal made.

[00:13:18] Speaker 01:
There was no contrary evidence introduced.

[00:13:21] Speaker 01:
And there was no attempt to prove pretext on the employer's stated reason for this decision.

[00:13:29] Speaker 02:
Well, there were statements that pointed to a different reason why the action was taken.

[00:13:37] Speaker 02:
So that was implicit rebuttal because there were some pretty definitive statements made about what was going to, what might happen if the union came in and that, you know,

[00:13:51] Speaker 02:
You were going to get a pay raise, but perhaps not now.

[00:13:54] Speaker 02:
So that's also indirect evidence of the motive, just not nearly as altruistic.

[00:14:06] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, I would just point out a caveat at work here, which is that although, and I'm not clear on exactly which statements you're referencing, some of which are protected by 8C, but,

[00:14:18] Speaker 01:
Right line, right lines for dual.

[00:14:19] Speaker 02:
The ones I'm referencing are ones that were openly discussed in the record, so.

[00:14:24] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:14:25] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:14:26] Speaker 01:
I know.

[00:14:26] Speaker 01:
But some of those are protected by HC is all I'm saying.

[00:14:28] Speaker 01:
Well, that's.

[00:14:31] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:14:31] Speaker 01:
But right line allows for analysis of dual motive cases.

[00:14:35] Speaker 01:
The whole point of the affirmative defense is the employer is saying, here's the decision we made.

[00:14:41] Speaker 01:
We would have made this decision even in the presence of

[00:14:48] Speaker 01:
anti-union animus.

[00:14:50] Speaker 02:
The problem is the record is thin on that point.

[00:14:53] Speaker 02:
The record evidence, the record evidence is thin on that point.

[00:14:57] Speaker 02:
So we're in the record.

[00:14:59] Speaker 02:
Is there a statement or anything that other than a post hoc statement that says that the decision was made in an effort to comply with the law?

[00:15:14] Speaker 01:
It's not a post, but I'll

[00:15:17] Speaker 01:
provide sites to the record.

[00:15:18] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:15:38] Speaker 02:
I saw it in the briefs, but I'm trying to see where is some record evidence.

[00:15:43] Speaker 01:
So there's record evidence at ER 50.

[00:15:48] Speaker 01:
Er.

[00:15:48] Speaker 01:
125 through 74 Er.

[00:15:50] Speaker 02:
54 through 50 25 to 74 is this a big gap.

[00:15:56] Speaker 02:
That's a lot of yeah, okay?

[00:16:01] Speaker 01:
Er.

[00:16:01] Speaker 01:
54 through 56 okay, all right Could you er 48 and the air 50 else okay?

[00:16:09] Speaker 02:
Yeah, 48 er 48 or 50 I'll look at that while you're

[00:16:14] Speaker 02:
But did you want to conclude your remarks before you have yeah, yes.

[00:16:18] Speaker 01:
Yes, your honor In conclusion this this decision undermines a pre-court precedent in NLRB v. Katz by creating Ambiguity for employers not knowing when they

[00:16:38] Speaker 01:
must stop with discretionary processes or how to even determine whether something's discretionary or automatic.

[00:16:47] Speaker 01:
Again, you can't have a definition of non-discretionary automatic that has a 10% gap, loophole in it.

[00:16:56] Speaker 01:
And because this was brought under 83, by preponderance of the evidence, the GCs under additional

[00:17:02] Speaker 01:
I would like to make a motion to approve any affirmative defense offered by the employer.

[00:17:30] Speaker 00:
Substantial evidence supports the board's factual finding that air gas had a past practice of annual wage increases for the Burbank drivers and that air gas withheld that raise once the drivers unionized.

[00:17:43] Speaker 00:
That's a straightforward act of retaliation that violated the National Labor Relations Act.

[00:17:48] Speaker 00:
Air gas asked the court to reweigh the evidence on appeal, but of course that is inconsistent with the standard of review for such issues.

[00:17:57] Speaker 00:
There was a past practice, and that is demonstrated by documentary and testimonial evidence, that for at least the past four years, every October, the Burbank drivers received a wage increase.

[00:18:09] Speaker 00:
This was based on fixed tenure-based criteria in which there were two tiers of employees.

[00:18:16] Speaker 00:
If you had been hired in 2011 or later and had at least 12 months on the job at Airgas, you received $1 an hour every October for those four years.

[00:18:28] Speaker 00:
If you had been hired before 2011 or had less than 12 months of experience, you received a lower amount between 50 cents and 60 cents.

[00:18:37] Speaker 00:
And in any given year, everyone in that second category received the same amount.

[00:18:42] Speaker 00:
So it was 50 cents in 2014, 50 cents in 2015, 60 cents in 2016, and 55 in 2017.

[00:18:49] Speaker 00:
Again, that was across the board for everyone in that second category.

[00:18:54] Speaker 00:
This is demonstrated by spreadsheets in the record that Airgrass created and that were submitted as joint exhibits pursuant to a stipulation.

[00:19:03] Speaker 00:
It was also corroborated by McFarland's testimony where he said he had a philosophy, he had a process by which he gave the $1 an hour increases to the more recent hires in order to keep them on the job.

[00:19:17] Speaker 00:
And what was left he gave in that other fixed amount to the other employees in that second category.

[00:19:24] Speaker 00:
And I would point you to his testimony at excerpts of record 86, where he was asked, the process you used in doing that, did that change any over the period 2014 to 2017?

[00:19:36] Speaker 00:
His answer, no, it did not.

[00:19:38] Speaker 00:
So the person in charge of deciding how much the wage increase was testified that he had the same process for this entire period.

[00:19:47] Speaker 00:
But in 2018, when the drivers unionized, they did not get, and only those unionized drivers did not get,

[00:19:54] Speaker 00:
the increase.

[00:19:54] Speaker 00:
It was given to the non-union employees only.

[00:19:59] Speaker 00:
The evidence of deviations from this process that Aerogast talks about in its brief, as we detail in detail in our brief and in the board's decision, those were different types of employees.

[00:20:13] Speaker 00:
Those were production employees, not the drivers.

[00:20:15] Speaker 00:
The production employees didn't unionize, and they got the increase.

[00:20:19] Speaker 00:
focus should be on what the drivers got in past years, not what the production employees got in past years.

[00:20:26] Speaker 00:
So the fact that there are maybe some production employees whose raises didn't follow this set, that's immaterial to the board's decision here.

[00:20:34] Speaker 00:
And also we point out how some of their examples are factually incorrect.

[00:20:40] Speaker 00:
I'm happy to address any of those if the court wishes, but again, it's laid out in detail in the briefs.

[00:20:46] Speaker 00:
The evidence that they had, they deviated from this past practice because the drivers union voted to unionize.

[00:20:53] Speaker 00:
Judge Robinson, you pointed out these statements in the record where they're consistently saying, telling the drivers things like, remember, October is coming, which is when they would receive their raises in the past.

[00:21:03] Speaker 00:
If you guys vote the union in, we can't help you with the raises.

[00:21:07] Speaker 00:
Told one person, you were looking at a raise.

[00:21:09] Speaker 00:
Another air gas employee or official came in right after and says, but if you guys vote to the union, it's going to get ugly.

[00:21:15] Speaker 04:
Are any of those protected, those statements?

[00:21:17] Speaker 00:
No.

[00:21:19] Speaker 00:
I mean, they mention 8C in the arguments here today.

[00:21:22] Speaker 00:
And I believe it's in the brief once, but there's no developed argument.

[00:21:25] Speaker 00:
So I would argue that that argument has been waived by not spelling it out, which statements they believe are protected, why they believe that it's protected.

[00:21:34] Speaker 00:
There's no argument about that in their brief.

[00:21:36] Speaker 00:
And of course, 8C doesn't protect threats.

[00:21:38] Speaker 00:
And these are pretty clear evidence of threats.

[00:21:40] Speaker 00:
If you vote for the union, you don't get the raise.

[00:21:43] Speaker 00:
But on the other hand,

[00:21:44] Speaker 00:
says, if you guys don't vote in the union, wages are back on the table.

[00:21:48] Speaker 00:
So those are all statements in the record by multiple air gas officials.

[00:21:54] Speaker 00:
As you were pointing out, Judge Johnstone, there's no cat's defense here because there is this established past practice.

[00:22:01] Speaker 00:
So essentially, the cat's argument is just a repackaged version of the factual argument, whether there was a past practice or not.

[00:22:07] Speaker 00:
If there was a past practice, there's no cat's defense.

[00:22:10] Speaker 00:
And we have shown substantial evidence, which, again, is the standard of review here.

[00:22:14] Speaker 00:
that there was this past practice.

[00:22:16] Speaker 00:
Air Gas Council a couple of times talked about preponderance of the evidence.

[00:22:19] Speaker 00:
That would be the standard before the board and proceedings before the board.

[00:22:25] Speaker 00:
But on appeal, of course, the question is whether there's substantial evidence in the record to support the board's finding.

[00:22:31] Speaker 00:
And it's the record considered as a whole.

[00:22:33] Speaker 00:
So of course, you look at McFarland's testimony.

[00:22:35] Speaker 00:
You also look at the documentary evidence.

[00:22:37] Speaker 00:
So you look at everything.

[00:22:38] Speaker 00:
And the board, of course, rightfully did that.

[00:22:41] Speaker 00:
And for the same reason that there's no cat's defense

[00:22:44] Speaker 00:
They can't use that as their supposed bargaining obligation as a right-line defense.

[00:22:50] Speaker 00:
It's the same argument for both of those points.

[00:22:52] Speaker 00:
There was a past practice.

[00:22:53] Speaker 00:
So Katz doesn't prevent them from granting the wage increase, as this court recognized in Aaron Brothers, as you mentioned, Judge Johnstone.

[00:23:00] Speaker 00:
And for that same reason, it means there's no right-line defense by pointing to your obligations to bargain under the Katz doctrine.

[00:23:09] Speaker 00:
And of course, they're making this argument that they believed, maybe, that they had this obligation to refrain undercats from making the increases.

[00:23:18] Speaker 00:
That's wrong as a matter of law.

[00:23:20] Speaker 00:
But it's also not borne out by the record, because if they were truly concerned with the need to bargain over these raises, they could have gone to the union and offered to bargain over these raises.

[00:23:30] Speaker 00:
But they didn't do that.

[00:23:34] Speaker 00:
So right, so this is not only legally insufficient, but it is also pretext, evidence of pretext in the context of the, in the right-line parlance.

[00:23:47] Speaker 00:
And right, there is no, this is more, Judge Rollinson, you said there were some statements saying perhaps they wouldn't get the raises.

[00:23:53] Speaker 00:
I think this is stronger than perhaps.

[00:23:55] Speaker 00:
I think it is pretty clear they were telling employees on multiple occasions that if you vote for the union, you're not going to get the raise.

[00:24:01] Speaker 00:
And of course, that is what happened.

[00:24:03] Speaker 00:
Just one point about the advanced life systems decision in the DC Circuit.

[00:24:08] Speaker 00:
We don't have a dispute with the kind of legal reasoning in that case.

[00:24:12] Speaker 00:
The reason that the DC Circuit ruled against the board in that case was, as a factual matter, they found that there was not sufficient evidence showing that there was a past practice of annual wage increases.

[00:24:24] Speaker 00:
And we explain in the brief how that's distinguishable.

[00:24:26] Speaker 00:
It was over a much longer period of time when there were raises given and a broader range of amounts.

[00:24:34] Speaker 00:
Here, as I've said, it was every October for at least four years and more likely five.

[00:24:39] Speaker 00:
And it was the set amounts for one category and only a small range for the second category.

[00:24:46] Speaker 00:
And it doesn't matter when the raises were given pre-2013 or post-2018 because the question, the board's finding was based on the 2014 to 2017 window was an established practice there.

[00:25:00] Speaker 00:
So whether there was or was not established practice before then,

[00:25:04] Speaker 00:
doesn't matter whether that board finding was correct.

[00:25:10] Speaker 00:
There is nothing in the record that suggests that the past practice was based on a percentage that you would plug in, so the fact that there was differing percentages over time doesn't matter.

[00:25:21] Speaker 00:
The reason there were different percentage increases is because these employees had different wage rates to begin with before the raises were put into effect.

[00:25:35] Speaker 00:
One other point I was going to say, but it no, oh, yes, Omni.

[00:25:38] Speaker 00:
So again, there's nothing.

[00:25:40] Speaker 00:
This is just an application of the same principles that were set forth.

[00:25:44] Speaker 00:
Omni didn't establish anything.

[00:25:46] Speaker 00:
That was just applying existing precedent to the facts of that case.

[00:25:50] Speaker 00:
And the facts of that case aren't even that distinguishable from the facts of this case.

[00:25:53] Speaker 00:
Those raises were different from year to year, 3%, 4%, 3.5%.

[00:26:00] Speaker 00:
So that's kind of like the second category where they got $0.50 one year, $0.55 another year.

[00:26:06] Speaker 00:
And even stronger in this case, we have that first group of employees that got $1 every year from 2014 to 2017.

[00:26:12] Speaker 00:
So again, I guess I will just end where I started.

[00:26:17] Speaker 00:
This is a substantial evidence case.

[00:26:19] Speaker 00:
You're looking about whether a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the conclusion the board found.

[00:26:26] Speaker 00:
And I believe that is clear from the evidence that even if there is another way to read the evidence, which I'm not sure there is another reasonable way to read the evidence, the fact that doesn't change substantial evidence review, that the board's reading of the evidence here was reasonable.

[00:26:40] Speaker 00:
I'm happy to answer any questions about that or the other violation.

[00:26:43] Speaker 00:
If not, then I will rest on my brief for the remainder.

[00:26:47] Speaker 02:
Thank you for your time.

[00:26:50] Speaker 02:
Let's have two minutes for rebuttal.

[00:26:56] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:26:59] Speaker 01:
First of all, I'd like to address the issue of if the employer thought it had any questions, it could have relieved those by going to the union and offering to bargain over that.

[00:27:11] Speaker 01:
At no time during the election process from the filing of the petition until the board issued its certification of representative,

[00:27:24] Speaker 01:
Was the employer free to and this is what the dissent in the board's decision explicitly talks about when when former chairman Kaplan chairman at the time of this briefing Stated in in in the dissent

[00:27:39] Speaker 01:
That the employer could not act here without running the risk of violating other sections of the act given this prosecution one of the things I believe he was referring to is the fact that we would have violated a day to Which prohibits dealing with a non certified or non representative union of a group of employees.

[00:27:57] Speaker 01:
We were stuck in the laboratory conditions Doctrine and then we moved into the unilateral change doctrine as soon as we were there as soon as I

[00:28:07] Speaker 01:
bargaining commenced with the Union, Airgas provided notice of this process from October 1st and offered to bargain over it.

[00:28:20] Speaker 01:
Not insignificantly, the Union said, no, thank you, we want to defer bargaining on this till after all language issues.

[00:28:28] Speaker 02:
I thought the notice was to bargain on the process, but not the wages.

[00:28:34] Speaker 01:
No, the offer was to bargain over the wages, Your Honor.

[00:28:37] Speaker 01:
And we made the same offer.

[00:28:40] Speaker 01:
We provided the same notice and made the same offer the following year.

[00:28:44] Speaker 01:
And they also turned us down that year and deferred it again to the end of all language issues.

[00:28:51] Speaker 02:
So you gave me some record sites for evidence of the decision not to offer wages because of fear of running afoul of the act.

[00:29:02] Speaker 02:
And so I'm looking at page 50.

[00:29:05] Speaker 02:
And I want you to tell me the precise language on that page that you say is evidence that the employer acted out of caution against violating the act.

[00:29:19] Speaker 02:
So what language on there should I be looking at to confirm that representation?

[00:29:31] Speaker 02:
Page 50.

[00:29:33] Speaker ?:
Yep.

[00:30:00] Speaker 02:
Well, this is testimony that goes to... I'm asking you to give me the precise language on that page that confirms the representation that the company was acting out of a desire not to run afoul of the act.

[00:30:20] Speaker 01:
Well, there's nothing on this page that addresses that.

[00:30:23] Speaker 02:
Okay, so let's turn to pages 125 to 74, which is the contract proposal.

[00:30:28] Speaker 02:
So tell me what language

[00:30:30] Speaker 02:
between those pages constitute evidence that the company was motivated out of a desire to comply with the act.

[00:30:59] Speaker 01:
Okay, so 120, all right.

[00:31:06] Speaker 01:
So... if you...

[00:31:27] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:31:29] Speaker 01:
If I could direct Your Honor's attention to page 126.

[00:31:33] Speaker 01:
At the very bottom, although the employer is fine bargaining non-economic proposals first, the employer states at the very outset of bargaining that we are willing to bargain over economic items at any time.

[00:31:44] Speaker 01:
The employer and the union have already corresponded and agreed to bargain over two 2018 gain share payments.

[00:31:51] Speaker 01:
Because of the timing of the RC petition in this case, in 2018,

[00:31:56] Speaker 01:
The employer did not conduct.

[00:31:57] Speaker 02:
What does that say?

[00:31:59] Speaker 02:
What evidence is that of the motive of the company?

[00:32:04] Speaker 01:
It's explaining to the union why we didn't unilaterally implement it at the time, because we're.

[00:32:12] Speaker 02:
Page 126, where does it say that?

[00:32:14] Speaker 01:
Bottom of page 126 into page 127.

[00:32:17] Speaker 02:
That we are willing to bargain over economic items at any time?

[00:32:26] Speaker ?:
Yeah.

[00:32:26] Speaker 01:
And then on the next page, where it details the timing of the RC petition in this case?

[00:32:33] Speaker 02:
The employer did not conduct the market analysis.

[00:32:35] Speaker 03:
And then the-as a result, the employees did not receive wage adjustments?

[00:32:39] Speaker 02:
That's- That's your- Yeah.

[00:32:40] Speaker 02:
That's your definition.

[00:32:42] Speaker 02:
And then page 54 to 56, what's your language?

[00:32:50] Speaker 01:
I believe 54 and 56 is a discussion of how the bargaining got underway.

[00:32:56] Speaker 01:
was provided because it's context for the exhibit that we were just discussing at 126 and 127, but I'm going to review it right now.

[00:33:04] Speaker 02:
So there's nothing in there that expressly addresses the moment.

[00:33:09] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, I haven't reviewed page 54, page 56 yet.

[00:33:11] Speaker 02:
Well, I would assume you would have reviewed it before you came, if you're relying on it.

[00:33:15] Speaker 01:
I mean, I did review it, but you're asking me directly right now.

[00:33:19] Speaker 01:
OK, the answer to your question, Your Honor, is that these pages discuss

[00:33:24] Speaker 01:
the bargain, how the bargaining started, when the bargaining started, and what documents were exchanged.

[00:33:29] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:33:29] Speaker 01:
And so how does that set forth the motive of the company to... Because it establishes that I explained to the union rep, both verbally and in writing, why the employees did not receive an increase in 2018, October, and that we were now willing to bargain over that if the union wanted to.

[00:33:48] Speaker 01:
And then the union said, no, thank you.

[00:33:52] Speaker 02:
So what page is that?

[00:33:54] Speaker 01:
Again, that is on 126 into 127.

[00:33:57] Speaker 02:
Oh, I thought you said, oh, I thought we were on 54 through 56.

[00:34:02] Speaker 01:
Those are the pages where I establish how we were bargaining.

[00:34:07] Speaker 02:
All right.

[00:34:08] Speaker 02:
OK.

[00:34:08] Speaker 02:
I get the drift.

[00:34:09] Speaker 01:
OK, cool.

[00:34:10] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:34:11] Speaker 01:
OK, thank you.

[00:34:11] Speaker 02:
Any additional questions?

[00:34:16] Speaker 02:
All right.

[00:34:16] Speaker 02:
Did you want to wrap up, counsel?

[00:34:18] Speaker 02:
Did you want to wrap up?

[00:34:19] Speaker 01:
Oh, sure.

[00:34:20] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:34:22] Speaker 01:
So again, the employer

[00:34:25] Speaker 01:
could not offer to bargain over this at the time without violating 82.

[00:34:29] Speaker 01:
The employer could not unilaterally implement this wage adjustment process, which, and I think opposing counsel's description of 2011, if you were hired after it, you got this.

[00:34:44] Speaker 01:
But if you were hired before another, like, when Kaplan, in his dissent, described this process, described the board's

[00:34:53] Speaker 01:
decision as painting the bullseye around the arrow, that's precisely what he was talking about.

[00:34:57] Speaker 01:
There is no way to back-engineer this process to produce, there's no way to remedy this.

[00:35:03] Speaker 01:
There's no way to produce wage increases to calculate what wage increases should have applied to each individual employee in 2018.

[00:35:11] Speaker 02:
But Council, that view didn't carry the day with the board.

[00:35:13] Speaker 02:
That's a dissent.

[00:35:15] Speaker 02:
And so our standard review here is whether or not there is substantial evidence to support the majority decision.

[00:35:22] Speaker 01:
And I'm and I'm and I'm arguing that there wasn't for three reasons.

[00:35:27] Speaker 02:
We heard of okay.

[00:35:28] Speaker 01:
All right.

[00:35:28] Speaker 02:
All right counsel.

[00:35:29] Speaker 02:
Yeah, thank you to both counsel for your helpful arguments The case just argued is submitted for decision by the court that completes our calendar for the day We're on recess until 9 30 a.m.

[00:35:38] Speaker 02:
Tomorrow morning