[00:00:01] Speaker 01:
The case number 12-1011 at L. Raymond Interior Systems, Inc.

[00:00:06] Speaker 01:
Petitioner vs. National Labor Relations Board.

[00:00:09] Speaker 01:
Mr. Bowles for Petitioner, Raymond Interior Systems.

[00:00:12] Speaker 01:
Ms.

[00:00:12] Speaker 01:
Mazurian for Petitioner, Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters.

[00:00:16] Speaker 01:
Mr. Lario for responding.

[00:00:25] Speaker 06:
Good morning.

[00:00:26] Speaker 07:
Let's let everybody get out of the courtroom first.

[00:00:28] Speaker 07:
Pardon me?

[00:00:29] Speaker 07:
Let's let everyone get out of the courtroom first.

[00:00:39] Speaker 07:
Mr. Bowles, everyone was polite enough not to correct me that I had my fact situation reversed.

[00:00:47] Speaker 07:
This is the case with the coerced activity nine years ago.

[00:00:53] Speaker 06:
Correct.

[00:00:54] Speaker 07:
So can you bring us up to date?

[00:00:55] Speaker 06:
Yes.

[00:00:56] Speaker 06:
Again, I'm James Bowles on behalf of Petitioner Raymond Interior Systems.

[00:01:02] Speaker 06:
Raymond continues to have a... I do that all the time.

[00:01:05] Speaker 06:
collective bargaining agreement with the carpenters, although it's been ordered by the NLRB to rescind that agreement.

[00:01:16] Speaker 06:
And that's the principal point I want to make in the argument today, is that the board erred in requiring the rescission

[00:01:25] Speaker 06:
of a pre-existing collective bargaining agreement between Raymond and the Carpenters.

[00:01:32] Speaker 06:
Raymond is a construction industry employer, and obviously the Carpenters are a construction industry union.

[00:01:38] Speaker 06:
And they're allowed under Section 8F of the National Labor Relations Act, which this Court is aware of from Nova Plumbing and other decisions, to have pre-hire agreements.

[00:01:50] Speaker 06:
And Raymond and the Carpenters entered into a pre-hire agreement covering the drywall finishers employees, this group of employees upon the termination of the painters agreement that covered these employees.

[00:02:05] Speaker 06:
So as of October 1, 2006, Raymond had a pre-existing collective bargaining agreement with the Carpenters covering the drywall finishers.

[00:02:16] Speaker 04:
Yes, it did.

[00:02:20] Speaker 06:
And in the board at that time again refused to rule on our request that they address this issue.

[00:02:26] Speaker 06:
So twice they refused to address the validity of that section eight.

[00:02:32] Speaker 04:
How did they rescind?

[00:02:34] Speaker 06:
That's our question is how can they rescind?

[00:02:37] Speaker 04:
Where is that?

[00:02:40] Speaker 06:
No, we appeal both cases, both cases.

[00:02:45] Speaker 06:
And they're both in our petition for review in this court.

[00:02:48] Speaker 06:
OK.

[00:02:48] Speaker 06:
So I thought something else occurred.

[00:02:50] Speaker 06:
Pardon me?

[00:02:50] Speaker 07:
When you say both cases, you mean the motion for reconsideration?

[00:02:53] Speaker 06:
Yes, yes.

[00:02:54] Speaker 06:
Right.

[00:02:54] Speaker 06:
OK.

[00:02:54] Speaker 06:
Correct.

[00:02:54] Speaker 07:
Well, I don't see how, I mean, they didn't refuse to.

[00:02:59] Speaker 07:
They said it's irrelevant.

[00:03:00] Speaker 00:
Correct.

[00:03:01] Speaker 07:
That we don't need to.

[00:03:02] Speaker 07:
And the reason is that even if you had the 8F agreement on October 1, even if the board said that,

[00:03:11] Speaker 07:
You tried to convert it into a 9A the next day.

[00:03:15] Speaker 07:
And when that was foiled, and your position is, well, then at least this survives, that is, it revives the 8F, why couldn't the board say what it did in that footnote saying, you're free to negotiate an 8F with the Carpenters or any other union?

[00:03:40] Speaker 06:
Because they ordered us, though, to rescind the existing 8F agreement, and that's contrary to the board's precedent.

[00:03:48] Speaker 06:
What they said is we should cease and desist from entering into.

[00:03:52] Speaker 07:
OK, we're in the order from the motion for reconsideration.

[00:03:58] Speaker 07:
When you read it together with footnote five, or even when you don't.

[00:04:04] Speaker 07:
Well, I think you have to read it together with footnote five.

[00:04:08] Speaker 07:
Does the board?

[00:04:10] Speaker 07:
say, okay, we will withdraw and withhold all recognition from Carpenter's local union, so on and so forth, of our drywall finishing employees unless you get the certification.

[00:04:24] Speaker 07:
But then you look at footnote five that says contrary to Raymond's contention, the board's order should not be interpreted

[00:04:33] Speaker 07:
as requiring a board certification, et cetera, before Raymond can lawfully recognize the Carpenters or any other union as an AF.

[00:04:40] Speaker 06:
Right, but it's unclear from that whether or not our pre-existing 8F agreement was still in effect.

[00:04:46] Speaker 07:
Well, what if it was, and what if it wasn't?

[00:04:49] Speaker 07:
You could do it right now, or you could have done it on December 31st.

[00:04:53] Speaker 06:
Correct, we could have, but then there would be liability to the carpenters for the Union Security Clause because the pre-existing 8F agreement was not in effect.

[00:05:05] Speaker 06:
from the board's decision going back to October 1 of 2006.

[00:05:09] Speaker 04:
Yeah, under Luke and Seidel, the amount of money that would be owed is reduced under your theory.

[00:05:18] Speaker 06:
Correct.

[00:05:18] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:05:19] Speaker 04:
Correct, and yes.

[00:05:20] Speaker 04:
In other words, the remedy, and the board has specifically said that the remedy would be cut short.

[00:05:24] Speaker 06:
And that's our primary argument here, is that they didn't follow Luke and Seidel, their own precedent, and they can't depart from their own precedent without an explanation.

[00:05:35] Speaker 04:
I don't know how they say it's not relevant.

[00:05:37] Speaker 06:
That's perplexing.

[00:05:38] Speaker 06:
That's perplexing to us.

[00:05:39] Speaker 06:
And we asked in reconsideration, please address this issue.

[00:05:43] Speaker 06:
And they refused to address the issue.

[00:05:45] Speaker 06:
They addressed the issue on an ongoing forward basis, saying that under 8F we can enter into a new agreement.

[00:05:52] Speaker 06:
but they didn't address the validity of the original agreement.

[00:05:54] Speaker 04:
The simple point you're trying to make is if we have an existing 8F and it is still, and it is valid and you think under board law it should be valid because the subsequent ULP does not initiate the prior 8F.

[00:06:06] Speaker 04:
Correct.

[00:06:07] Speaker 04:
Then are that, whatever money is due is substantially different.

[00:06:11] Speaker 04:
Correct.

[00:06:13] Speaker 06:
That is correct.

[00:06:14] Speaker 06:
And the reason is because it contravenes the statute, their decision, it contravenes their prior precedent,

[00:06:21] Speaker 06:
It has grave due process concerns because what they're saying is that the carpenters has to repay the union security dues, even though the unfair labor practice was committed by Raymond by supposedly saying the wrong thing at the October 2 meeting and trying to convert to a 9A agreement.

[00:06:41] Speaker 06:
And in Zydel itself, the board said, we're not going to punish the union for what the employer did or vice versa.

[00:06:50] Speaker 06:
That would raise grave constitutional concerns, is what they said in Zydel.

[00:06:55] Speaker 07:
Yeah, but you had the misconduct of both parties, the board found.

[00:06:59] Speaker 06:
No, that's not correct.

[00:07:01] Speaker 06:
The ALJ found that there was no violation by the carpenters in any statement that was coerced or told people improper information.

[00:07:14] Speaker 07:
Well, you have a BEK violation.

[00:07:15] Speaker 06:
That's a separate violation, but that's not a basis to rescind an ADEF agreement.

[00:07:23] Speaker 06:
because it occurred later.

[00:07:25] Speaker 06:
And so again, and also the NLRA is not supposed to be punitive.

[00:07:29] Speaker 06:
They're not supposed to order these orders for basis of penalizing.

[00:07:35] Speaker 06:
They're supposed to make whole.

[00:07:37] Speaker 06:
And if we made whole and go back to October 1, the 8F agreement would be in place.

[00:07:42] Speaker 07:
If there had been no coercion finding,

[00:07:47] Speaker 07:
What type of agreement would you have had on October 2nd?

[00:07:51] Speaker 07:
You would have had a 9A, right?

[00:07:53] Speaker 06:
Correct.

[00:07:53] Speaker 06:
After the conversion, there would have been a 9A, after the signing of the agreement and the presentation of the authorization cards.

[00:08:04] Speaker 05:
Your challenge to the unfair labor practices that occurred subsequently, that's all your argument is not supported by substantial evidence, right?

[00:08:13] Speaker 06:
Correct, Your Honor, for two reasons.

[00:08:15] Speaker 06:
One is, I understand that it's very rare for credibility resolutions to be overturned by this Court.

[00:08:22] Speaker 05:
Not only rare, I actually couldn't find a case where we've done that.

[00:08:26] Speaker 06:
I understand that.

[00:08:27] Speaker 06:
But there are cases that say that if they're patently unreasonable.

[00:08:30] Speaker 05:
Do you know of a case where we've actually used the standard, hopelessly incredible standard, where we found that?

[00:08:39] Speaker 06:
No, I do not, Your Honor.

[00:08:40] Speaker 06:
But Stephen's media does hold that if they're patently incredible and contradictory, if you're ever going to do it, this would be the case.

[00:08:47] Speaker 05:
And why is that?

[00:08:49] Speaker 05:
What's your best argument?

[00:08:50] Speaker 06:
Well, the best reason is that

[00:08:53] Speaker 06:
The administrative law judge relied on Jose Ramos, who did not speak English, did not use the translation headphones, could not give the English version.

[00:09:02] Speaker 06:
Therefore, he lacked personal knowledge.

[00:09:04] Speaker 05:
Well, let me ask you about that.

[00:09:06] Speaker 05:
I saw that in your brief about Ramos.

[00:09:10] Speaker 05:
You tried this case before the ALJ, right?

[00:09:13] Speaker 06:
Yes, I did.

[00:09:15] Speaker 05:
So the joint appendix 475

[00:09:23] Speaker 05:
You asked Ramos if he listened through an interpreter, and he said yes, right?

[00:09:29] Speaker 05:
And then, then, in 477, twice more, you referred to him as using an interpreter.

[00:09:41] Speaker 06:
I don't have that side in front of me, but I just read them to you.

[00:09:45] Speaker 05:
I believe that- In brief, you say,

[00:09:49] Speaker 05:
He testified without an interpreter.

[00:09:52] Speaker 06:
I don't... He said he did not use the headphones.

[00:09:54] Speaker 05:
I just don't... What?

[00:09:56] Speaker 05:
Well, isn't that the same as he testified without an interpreter?

[00:10:00] Speaker 06:
Correct.

[00:10:02] Speaker 05:
So do you stand by this statement in your brief?

[00:10:04] Speaker 06:
Yes.

[00:10:06] Speaker 05:
So how do you explain the portions of the record I cited?

[00:10:11] Speaker 06:
Well, it's possible that he said two different things.

[00:10:14] Speaker 06:
He was contradictory.

[00:10:16] Speaker 05:
Where was he contradictory?

[00:10:18] Speaker 06:
He said at one point that he did not use the headphones.

[00:10:27] Speaker 05:
But beyond that is even he said...

[00:10:44] Speaker 05:
Here, I'm just looking for this, he says, okay, so there were three witnesses.

[00:10:50] Speaker 05:
The ALJ found Windsor to be, quote, disingenuous.

[00:10:54] Speaker 05:
And what's his name, Zaharo?

[00:10:57] Speaker 05:
Yes, but I can't you want us to overturn those?

[00:11:01] Speaker 06:
But he found that the witnesses Gordon Hubbell, David Cordero, and Pedro Laura, who corroborated him, were credible.

[00:11:10] Speaker 06:
And he also found that the painter's witness, Richard Myers, who said there were no unlawful statements, was also honest.

[00:11:16] Speaker 06:
So he says that four different people who were honest and didn't hear it are credible and honest, and yet he doesn't credit them.

[00:11:26] Speaker 06:
And he credits Ramos, who at least when the general counsel asked him the question said they could continue to work but needed to sign with the carpenters.

[00:11:35] Speaker 06:
not an unlawful statement.

[00:11:36] Speaker 06:
It was only later when the painters examined him that he said, oh, it has to be that day, and then later on cross-examination he said it has to be this day.

[00:11:47] Speaker 06:
So his testimony changes each time that he's asked the question, and the ALJ discredits four witnesses that he finds to be honest.

[00:11:57] Speaker 06:
And even

[00:11:58] Speaker 06:
Ruben Alvarez, the other painter's witness, said there were no unlawful statements by Windsor.

[00:12:04] Speaker 06:
He said the unlawful statements were by Zarrero.

[00:12:07] Speaker 06:
So I'm just saying, if you were ever going to overturn a credibility issue, this would be the one.

[00:12:12] Speaker 06:
But there's one other thing, and that is that the statements were about the signing of union membership cards.

[00:12:18] Speaker 06:
You have to sign with the union today for your union membership, supposedly.

[00:12:23] Speaker 06:
There was not one scintilla of evidence that that statement influenced employees to sign union authorization cards, which are a different animal.

[00:12:32] Speaker 06:
That has to do with union representation, not union membership.

[00:12:36] Speaker 06:
And we cited the cases holding that.

[00:12:38] Speaker 06:
And therefore, there was not any substantial evidence.

[00:12:42] Speaker 06:
There was no scintilla of evidence that anybody was influenced by these statements to sign an authorization card.

[00:12:48] Speaker 04:
The other attorneys as well.

[00:12:49] Speaker 04:
Are you aware of any cases?

[00:12:51] Speaker 04:
I can't find any in which the union in the position of the painters.

[00:12:56] Speaker 04:
Seem to be in a grief for you when they're seeking alternate benefits.

[00:13:02] Speaker 06:
I'm not aware, your honor.

[00:13:04] Speaker 04:
I really perplexed about that.

[00:13:06] Speaker 04:
I'll ask the board attorney as well, because my understanding is even though they filed a charge, the complaint is what the board's complaint is what carries the day.

[00:13:16] Speaker 04:
That's correct.

[00:13:17] Speaker 04:
And I can't comprehend how the painters can be an agreed priority if all they're seeking is alternative benefits.

[00:13:24] Speaker 06:
I agree with that.

[00:13:26] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:13:26] Speaker 04:
I'll ask the other board.

[00:13:27] Speaker 07:
Thank you.

[00:13:28] Speaker 07:
All right.

[00:13:36] Speaker 00:
May it please the court, my name is Yulia Mirzayan of DeCarlo and Shanley, representing the petitioner cross-respondent, the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters.

[00:13:48] Speaker 00:
The union is, the Carpenters Union is in agreement with everything that Mr. Bolz has just said that's applicable to both the carpenters and the employer, so I'm just going to address the

[00:14:02] Speaker 00:
the BECC issue.

[00:14:04] Speaker 00:
And the law regarding the BECC and General Motors Notice is clear that the notice may be given either before or concurrently with the time that the union is seeking to oblige the employees to become members and to pay the full dues, including the non-representational expenditures.

[00:14:27] Speaker 00:
And the dispute here

[00:14:28] Speaker 00:
primarily seems to be about what constitutes concurrent notice.

[00:14:34] Speaker 00:
And the board is taking the position that there was no concurrent notice because the January, March 2006 issue of the Carpenter Magazine, which contained the BEK notice, was handed out to the employees after they had returned the completed membership application.

[00:14:53] Speaker 00:
But it's very relevant here that the handing out of the membership application and the Carpenter magazine, it all happened at the same meeting, the October 2nd, 2006 meeting.

[00:15:07] Speaker 00:
And the relevance of that is that the point of the BEG notice is to make sure that the decision to become members

[00:15:14] Speaker 00:
and to pay the non-representational expenditures was voluntary, that it was not coerced.

[00:15:20] Speaker 00:
And some of the facts that show that there was no coercion, which I'd like to highlight, was that the BEK notice in the magazine, it even contains the sentence that workers cannot lawfully be required to actually join a union as a condition of employment.

[00:15:40] Speaker 00:
And the magazine and the membership applications, they were handed out by the same individuals, Margaret Armenta, who was a Spanish speaker, and Melinda Arlene Carlton.

[00:15:54] Speaker 00:
So after reviewing the magazine,

[00:15:56] Speaker 00:
the employees could have come back to this very same table and asked to withdraw the membership application.

[00:16:04] Speaker 00:
In addition, they could have gone home to review the magazine because no dues were actually collected that day, so they had a further chance to review the BEK notice and see

[00:16:20] Speaker 00:
what they thought about it.

[00:16:22] Speaker 00:
So in this context, there was no coercion, and the facts are very different from California saw.

[00:16:29] Speaker 00:
Where the new hires, they were just given the membership applications and the dues checkoff form without further action whatsoever.

[00:16:37] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:16:42] Speaker 07:
All right.

[00:16:42] Speaker 07:
Mr. Laurel.

[00:16:54] Speaker 03:
Good morning, Your Honor.

[00:16:55] Speaker 03:
Good morning.

[00:16:55] Speaker 04:
Are you aware of any case just preliminarily?

[00:16:58] Speaker 04:
Excuse me, Your Honor?

[00:16:59] Speaker 04:
Are you aware of any case situation in which a union in the painter's situation has seemed to be in agreement?

[00:17:06] Speaker 03:
Based on the denial of the alternative benefits remedy?

[00:17:10] Speaker 03:
Yeah.

[00:17:10] Speaker 03:
I'm not aware off the top of my head of one, and as you know, the painter's issues were submitted to the court on the briefs.

[00:17:16] Speaker 03:
So the answer to your question is no, I'm not aware of one off the top of my head.

[00:17:21] Speaker 04:
I mean, it's a curious situation because I can't understand that they appear in the situation to be no different than anyone walking on the street and saying, we just noticed the situation.

[00:17:33] Speaker 04:
They had no rights.

[00:17:34] Speaker 04:
They were lawfully removed from bargaining rights.

[00:17:37] Speaker 04:
Someone on the street says, we noticed a strange situation here.

[00:17:40] Speaker 04:
We think the charge should be filed and a complaint issued.

[00:17:44] Speaker 04:
And I can't, for the life of me, understand why they're in the Green Party.

[00:17:47] Speaker 04:
And I just wondered, none of you raised it, which is perplexing to me.

[00:17:52] Speaker 04:
And their statement of standing doesn't say anything.

[00:17:55] Speaker 04:
It just says they didn't get something they wanted.

[00:17:57] Speaker 04:
Well, that doesn't give you standing.

[00:17:59] Speaker 04:
There are lots of people out there who could come to court and say, I'd like something.

[00:18:02] Speaker 04:
And if you deny it to me, I have standing.

[00:18:04] Speaker 04:
That's not the way it works.

[00:18:07] Speaker 04:
None of you addressed it.

[00:18:08] Speaker 04:
I don't understand it.

[00:18:09] Speaker 04:
I looked for the alternate benefit cases.

[00:18:11] Speaker 04:
I couldn't find a union in this situation.

[00:18:13] Speaker 04:
No, I'm not aware of any such case and I'm not in a position to make the painter's argument for them at this time.

[00:18:27] Speaker 03:
But anyway, Your Honors, turning to the issues before the Court, one thing we need to look at, and Your Honors addressed this morning, is that the accredited testimony supports the Board's findings of the violations on October 2nd of the year in question.

[00:18:44] Speaker 03:
And one key thing here was the unlawful assistance.

[00:18:46] Speaker 03:
Now, my opponent, acknowledging that they have a very heavy burden to meet to show that the underlying credibility findings were hopelessly incredible, tries their best.

[00:18:55] Speaker 03:
But I would submit that not only is that violation based on undisputed legal principles, no one's denying that if you make the statements found that employees have to sign up with the union that day in derogation of their statutory and contractual grace period, that that constitutes unlawful assistance.

[00:19:12] Speaker 03:
The question is,

[00:19:14] Speaker 03:
Did the judge make a mistake in believing the witnesses he chose to believe?

[00:19:18] Speaker 03:
And does my opponent meet the heavy burden of showing that decision was inherently incredible?

[00:19:22] Speaker 03:
They clearly did not.

[00:19:23] Speaker 03:
As Your Honors noted, these are demeanor-based findings.

[00:19:26] Speaker 03:
They found that one witness, Mr. Windsor, testified disingenuously, contradicted himself on key points.

[00:19:32] Speaker 03:
It was also noted that the other witnesses the company would like to rely on, Mr. Zarrero, Mr. Hubel from the union,

[00:19:38] Speaker 03:
Also contradicted, Mr. Windsor, a key point.

[00:19:42] Speaker 03:
But in any event, at the end of the day, this is a solid, demeanor-based finding, as is the decision to credit the testimony of three employees that they heard the unlawful statements, signed today or no word.

[00:19:53] Speaker 04:
Mr. Laura, let's get to the serious issue, at least from my perspective in this case.

[00:19:59] Speaker 04:
We understand your credibility arguments.

[00:20:02] Speaker 04:
The board says it doesn't have to determine whether it was a valid 8K.

[00:20:06] Speaker 04:
I mean, when I read the briefs, and as I listen to your arguments, I don't understand it.

[00:20:13] Speaker 04:
Obviously, there was an important reason why you decided.

[00:20:15] Speaker 04:
It affects the remedy, assuming you're right, and everything else.

[00:20:19] Speaker 03:
Well, Your Honor, as the board explained, it was immaterial whether they had a prior... It's not immaterial under existing case law.

[00:20:27] Speaker 04:
It's absolutely not immaterial.

[00:20:28] Speaker 04:
I've got the cases right in front of me.

[00:20:29] Speaker 04:
I just looked at them again.

[00:20:31] Speaker 04:
If there's a valid pre-existing, pre-hire agreement, that affects the remedy.

[00:20:36] Speaker 04:
And that's what the board law is.

[00:20:38] Speaker 04:
They did not distinguish that case law.

[00:20:40] Speaker 04:
They didn't even address it.

[00:20:41] Speaker 03:
Well, two things, Your Honor.

[00:20:42] Speaker 04:
One... And Zydell can't... You can try and distinguish Zydell.

[00:20:46] Speaker 04:
You can't distinguish Luke.

[00:20:48] Speaker 04:
And there are some Court of Appeals cases that have said the same thing.

[00:20:51] Speaker 04:
If you have a pre-existing valid agreement, a subsequent ULP doesn't vitiate that prior agreement.

[00:20:57] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:20:58] Speaker 03:
A couple points in answering your question.

[00:21:00] Speaker 03:
One is that I do stand by the board's point that its focus on the remedy is undoing and addressing the unlawful assistance, 9A recognition, and application of that collective bargaining agreement and its union security clause to the employees.

[00:21:18] Speaker 03:
And it is true as to that, the fact you had a prior 8F agreement would not change those violations or the need to remedy them.

[00:21:25] Speaker 03:
Now, in remedying those violations, which again, I want to be specific, it includes that as a result of the unlawful recognition and support and assistance, you then apply that 2006 Carpenters Agreement and its Union Security Clause unlawfully to these employees, and that needs to be undone.

[00:21:42] Speaker 03:
Now, a couple things there.

[00:21:44] Speaker 03:
One thing my opponent suggests, and I'm not sure they have a limiting principle there, is why can't we just go back to that exact same 2006 agreement or its equivalent?

[00:21:52] Speaker 03:
It doesn't make sense.

[00:21:53] Speaker 03:
That was part of the violation, and those violations and the coercive impact have not been done.

[00:21:58] Speaker 03:
Now, as to Zidell and Luke, they're clearly distinguishable, as we pointed in our brief, and the board is very specific.

[00:22:04] Speaker 03:
The limiting principle there was that you did not want to impose vicarious liability on an innocent union where there wasn't evidence.

[00:22:16] Speaker 04:
of a fact situation in Luke.

[00:22:18] Speaker 04:
And there are a couple of Court of Appeals cases, same thing.

[00:22:20] Speaker 04:
Well, that's not a distinguishing consideration.

[00:22:23] Speaker 04:
That's not a relevant consideration.

[00:22:25] Speaker 03:
And Luke, first of all, I don't think Luke is clearly on all fours here, where you have a union of carpenters who participated in, was aware of, and committed its own violations.

[00:22:34] Speaker 03:
The carpenters accepted unlawful assistance, and the board found that violated the act.

[00:22:39] Speaker 03:
The carpenters accepted the unlawful recognition, and the board found that violated the act.

[00:22:43] Speaker 03:
The Carpenters applied its agreement to employees and the Union Security Clause, the board found that violated the Act, and they committed their own BEK violation.

[00:22:51] Speaker 03:
That's not on all fours with Luke.

[00:22:52] Speaker 03:
And another thing in Luke that's not on all fours here, as Your Honor can see looking at the case, there the employer took voluntary steps to remedy its violations.

[00:23:02] Speaker 03:
That's another distinguishing factor.

[00:23:04] Speaker 03:
We don't have those circumstances here.

[00:23:06] Speaker 04:
And the board has explained all of this in its opinion.

[00:23:10] Speaker 03:
The board explained why the existence of a valid prior 8F is not germane, and what I just said supports that finding.

[00:23:19] Speaker 03:
It would not make a difference.

[00:23:20] Speaker 03:
It would not be outcome determinative, because you would still have the violations on October.

[00:23:24] Speaker 04:
What do you think the board said, as opposed to what you surmised?

[00:23:28] Speaker 04:
What do you think the board said that we would be looking at that powerfully disposes of the prior precedent, including some of the court of appeals opinions?

[00:23:38] Speaker 03:
Well, Your Honor, I think the Court would be looking at, for example, the fact that the cases relied on by my opponent are distinguishable.

[00:23:45] Speaker 04:
This is not a situation... Now, what did the Board say in its opinion to make that clear?

[00:23:52] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, I recognize as you did what the Board said.

[00:23:54] Speaker 03:
It simply said, we find that the existence of a prior ADA would not change the result.

[00:24:00] Speaker 04:
Your Honor, that's what I thought.

[00:24:01] Speaker 04:
So they didn't say anything.

[00:24:03] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, I have the same opinion.

[00:24:05] Speaker 04:
It is not our responsibility to try and fill in what an agency meant to say.

[00:24:12] Speaker 04:
Because now we're running into the problem where your view of the precedent is different from my view of the precedent.

[00:24:17] Speaker 04:
And in truth, the answer is the board's supposed to tell us what they think the precedent means.

[00:24:21] Speaker 04:
I just want to confirm it wasn't missing something you were telling me.

[00:24:24] Speaker 04:
The board didn't say anything.

[00:24:25] Speaker 03:
No, Your Honor.

[00:24:25] Speaker 03:
I mean, with due respect, I think it's clear that cases like Zadell and Luke are distinguishable for the reasons I mentioned.

[00:24:31] Speaker 04:
If I would say back to you, with due respect, it's not clear to me.

[00:24:35] Speaker 03:
OK, I understand.

[00:24:36] Speaker 04:
But let me try something else.

[00:24:37] Speaker 04:
If it's not clear to us, if my panel members agree, it has to go back to the board, right?

[00:24:42] Speaker 04:
I don't know that it does.

[00:24:55] Speaker 03:
I don't concede that a prior lawful 8F would change the remedy here because the remedy is you still have to cease the unlawful recognition and the application of that contract.

[00:25:06] Speaker 03:
Something with all due respect, Your Honor, we haven't fully addressed this morning, is you have to ask my opponent, when you say you want a prior 8F, what do you mean exactly?

[00:25:13] Speaker 03:
What they mean is we want that same 2006 agreement, the one the board specifically said we can't apply because it's part of your violations on October 2nd after the unlawful assistance.

[00:25:31] Speaker 04:
pursuant to a subsequent ULP, that's the principle emanating from the president saying, can't do that.

[00:25:38] Speaker 04:
And the board hasn't explained why that's different.

[00:25:40] Speaker 04:
And you self-servingly say, well, they can't say what they're saying because that agreement's no good.

[00:25:45] Speaker 04:
And I'm asking you, how can you reach that conclusion under existing precedent?

[00:25:49] Speaker 04:
You can't vitiate a pre-existing lawful agreement, is what the precedent says.

[00:25:55] Speaker 03:
The precedent says that in very distinguishable circumstances.

[00:25:59] Speaker 03:
I know we're going around in circles there.

[00:26:01] Speaker 04:
We're not going around in circles.

[00:26:02] Speaker 04:
We're right on a straight road.

[00:26:03] Speaker 04:
The point is the board hasn't answered the question.

[00:26:06] Speaker 04:
They haven't explained.

[00:26:07] Speaker 04:
You can't summarily say we're vitiating the agreement, but we're not going to decide it.

[00:26:12] Speaker 04:
That makes no sense.

[00:26:14] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, the point is that given that the board's order specifically says you cannot apply that agreement, and then my opponent simply says yes, we can, but their argument is contrary to basic remedial principles.

[00:26:26] Speaker 03:
We have these un-remedied coercive acts against the employees.

[00:26:30] Speaker 03:
They're still there.

[00:26:31] Speaker 03:
The employer basically says, let me just apply the same terms, the same union security clause we unlawfully applied, slap an 8F sticker on it, and then just do that same thing to employees.

[00:26:42] Speaker 03:
I submit that doesn't make sense.

[00:26:44] Speaker 03:
It's contrary to the need to undo the impact of the violations found on October 2nd.

[00:26:49] Speaker 04:
Well, that's a good first draft of a board opinion.

[00:26:51] Speaker 04:
It might be interesting to hear what they say.

[00:26:53] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, with all due respect, I think I'm just elucidating basic remedial principles that the board cited in saying we're applying the traditional judicially approved remedy for these kinds of violations, the unlawful assistance and recognition and application of this contract, the same contract they want to go ahead and apply anyway, even though the board's order tells them not to, and for good reason.

[00:27:13] Speaker 03:
What would be the impact?

[00:27:15] Speaker 03:
of allowing them to go back to that exact same contract when they can't apply it because it's been coercively done.

[00:27:21] Speaker 03:
These employees have already been coerced in their choice whether to join the union or not.

[00:27:25] Speaker 03:
In under-8F, they still have a choice.

[00:27:27] Speaker 03:
Do I stay or do I go?

[00:27:28] Speaker 03:
Do I sign up or do I go elsewhere?

[00:27:31] Speaker 03:
And they've already been coerced into doing that in derogation of their statute during contractual grace period.

[00:27:37] Speaker 03:
I see him running out of time, and I appreciate your questions.

[00:27:40] Speaker 03:
I think the board's order is well-founded, and my opponent's desire to go back to the exact same agreement is not, but I just want to discuss quickly the Beck violation and point out that I agree with my opponent about one thing.

[00:27:54] Speaker 03:
To be timely, the notice has to be given concurrently.

[00:27:56] Speaker 03:
It's essentially conceded that didn't happen here because at the time,

[00:28:01] Speaker 03:
The carpenter has distributed those membership forms and other forms in a membership form that says, and it refers to your obligation to pay dues at that moment.

[00:28:09] Speaker 03:
That's an attempt to obligate employees to pay dues.

[00:28:12] Speaker 03:
And it's admitted that only after employees signed those forms and handed them in were they given any back notice at all.

[00:28:18] Speaker 03:
And that's against the policy, which says the notice must be concurrent, must be at that time.

[00:28:23] Speaker 03:
Otherwise, employees might be misled to believe that contrary to their back rights, they have to be full members and pay full dues.

[00:28:30] Speaker 03:
And so, again, I appreciate her back and forth.

[00:28:34] Speaker 03:
I think the board's remedy and decision is within its discretion.

[00:28:38] Speaker 03:
And unless the court has further questions, I thank it for its time.

[00:28:41] Speaker 07:
All right.

[00:28:41] Speaker 07:
Thank you.

[00:28:43] Speaker 07:
Does Mr. Bowles have any time?

[00:28:46] Speaker 07:
Why don't you take a minute?

[00:28:47] Speaker 06:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:28:54] Speaker 06:
Council's last point on the 8F issue doesn't make sense.

[00:28:59] Speaker 06:
If the board in its footnote five on the reconsideration motion says that Raymond may lawfully enter into a new 8F agreement at any time, then what would be the point of rescinding the old 8F agreement if we could have entered into a new 8F agreement at any time?

[00:29:21] Speaker 06:
So that would be an unreasonable remedy and contrary again to the board's own decisions.

[00:29:27] Speaker 04:
Your underlying argument, I'll make sure I have it right, is that if the board is right in everything else, the employees were coerced on dues and membership, not on the contract.

[00:29:36] Speaker 04:
Correct.

[00:29:37] Speaker 04:
Yeah.

[00:29:37] Speaker 04:
I mean, I don't understand.

[00:29:39] Speaker 04:
I have to look it up again.

[00:29:40] Speaker 04:
I don't understand his argument at all.

[00:29:42] Speaker 04:
I don't know what it means to be coerced on a pre-existing contract if it's lawful as there.

[00:29:47] Speaker 04:
But they arguably war-cores with respect to dues, payment, and membership.

[00:29:55] Speaker 04:
That's what they said, yes.

[00:29:58] Speaker 04:
And you're saying it makes a big difference because the remedy is different.

[00:30:01] Speaker 06:
Correct.

[00:30:02] Speaker 06:
And Your Honor, it's page 457 of the transcript, JA 457, is where he says, did you listen to Travis Windsor in English?

[00:30:14] Speaker 06:
And he says yes.

[00:30:14] Speaker 06:
Mr. Roberts, thank you.

[00:30:15] Speaker 07:
All right, and can you tell me again where the board rescinds this F-8 agreement in its order?

[00:30:22] Speaker 06:
In the remedy itself, in its statement that SHELP

[00:30:28] Speaker 07:
Until it gets a certification.

[00:30:31] Speaker 06:
Pardon me?

[00:30:31] Speaker 07:
Is that the language, until it gets a certification?

[00:30:34] Speaker 06:
Yes, correct.

[00:30:35] Speaker 07:
And that's not 8F?

[00:30:37] Speaker 06:
Right.

[00:30:38] Speaker 07:
That's not 8F?

[00:30:39] Speaker 06:
Correct, but it also says cease and desist from 1B on page JA043.

[00:30:47] Speaker 06:
It says, maintaining and enforcing or giving effect to the Carpenters Union 206 to 2010 Master Collective Bargaining Agreement.

[00:30:55] Speaker 06:
8F agreement.

[00:30:57] Speaker 06:
That's what I believe.

[00:30:58] Speaker 06:
And I agree with you that it's a little bit unclear from the order, but appellate counsel, and when we talked to the board region, they said they were taking the position that it required rescission of our pre-existing 8F agreement.

[00:31:12] Speaker 06:
And therefore, for that reason, we needed to appeal this.

[00:31:16] Speaker 04:
You're pointing to A1B, J840.

[00:31:19] Speaker 06:
Correct, yes.

[00:31:20] Speaker 04:
Thank you.