[00:00:01] Speaker 04: Case number 16-1031, Natalie Lucy at L Petitioners versus National Labor Relations Board. [00:00:07] Speaker 04: Mrs. Helen for the petitioners, Mr. DeKant for the respondent. [00:00:38] Speaker 01: Good morning. [00:00:39] Speaker 01: Good morning. [00:00:40] Speaker 01: Aaron Solom for Nathalie Risi and Michael Peluso, and may it please the court. [00:00:45] Speaker 01: This board has issued an arbitrary decision for an arbitrary and discriminatory policy. [00:00:50] Speaker 01: The ALJ merely concluded in a very skeletal opinion that a union has no duty to respond to requests for time-sensitive and immediately accessible information when that request is merely made over the telephone. [00:01:02] Speaker 01: This is wrong under board law and we cite six cases between pages 18 and 21 of our brief where the board held the union has a duty to respond to oral requests. [00:01:13] Speaker 01: This duty is even more important here because of the time sensitive nature of window periods and operating engineers on page 21 proves exactly our point. [00:01:23] Speaker 01: There, an employee orally requested a union business agent give him copies of names, addresses, telephone numbers of employees on the out-of-work register. [00:01:31] Speaker 01: The union business agent said, no, this information is private, and I am far too busy to give it to you. [00:01:37] Speaker 01: The board said the union had a duty to give this information, and it was acting arbitrarily. [00:01:42] Speaker 01: The union couldn't claim a privacy interest in third parties' addresses and telephone numbers because they were necessary. [00:01:50] Speaker 01: Of course, the board [00:01:51] Speaker 01: Council now claims that there's a privacy interest in this case, but we recently knew so we're only asking for their own dates. [00:01:57] Speaker 01: They weren't even asking for third party's information. [00:02:04] Speaker 04: Right, and the union camp... [00:02:11] Speaker 01: There's one case that the board can cite, and that's Boston Gas, where they say it's not unduly burdensome to require a writing to actually revoke a checkoff. [00:02:26] Speaker 01: This wasn't attempting to revoke a checkoff. [00:02:28] Speaker 01: This was attempting just to find information about it. [00:02:31] Speaker 01: And the union can't hide behind process. [00:02:33] Speaker 01: because it violates the duty of fair representation, because there's no reason basis, and in this case, is very discriminatory. [00:02:44] Speaker 04: There was nothing that would cause most people to think this was a serious concern. [00:02:52] Speaker 04: It's not easily accessible. [00:02:53] Speaker 04: The record indicates sometimes it is, sometimes it's not. [00:02:57] Speaker 04: We were concerned about [00:02:59] Speaker 04: interest of individuals in protecting, just send it to me in writing. [00:03:04] Speaker 04: In fact, when they got it, they gave it. [00:03:06] Speaker 01: Well, no, actually, the facts of this case actually show something the opposite. [00:03:10] Speaker 01: It shows why they needed it immediately. [00:03:12] Speaker 01: Peluso, when he actually sent his letter, the window period's only 15 days long, it took the union 12 days to respond, and they sent it to the wrong address. [00:03:22] Speaker 01: He wouldn't have even gotten the right, then they re-sent it to the right address, and he didn't receive it. [00:03:27] Speaker 01: If you look at the board's decision, he didn't actually receive the letter for four months. [00:03:31] Speaker 01: He only knew because he called and they told him after he sent the letter. [00:03:34] Speaker 01: But I want to dispute that this is not easily accessible. [00:03:37] Speaker 04: We're trying to hide anything. [00:03:38] Speaker 04: We're talking about the duty of fair representation, which is a very, very high standard for you to meet. [00:03:42] Speaker 04: You're forgetting what the baseline is. [00:03:44] Speaker 04: It is a very high standard for you to meet. [00:03:48] Speaker 04: And you have to show some really bad behavior on the part of the union and the fact that there were some mistakes [00:03:55] Speaker 04: or some miss mailing order, but there's nothing to indicate that the union was unwilling to give this information. [00:04:00] Speaker 04: All we're talking about is the union reasonable in saying, give us a written request. [00:04:06] Speaker 01: That's all I did. [00:04:07] Speaker 01: That's one part. [00:04:08] Speaker 01: That's one part. [00:04:09] Speaker 01: And of course, none of this appears in the board's decision. [00:04:11] Speaker 01: But the second part is a discriminatory test. [00:04:14] Speaker 01: The union gives out dates where you actually joined the union. [00:04:17] Speaker 01: So an example proves the point how this is discriminatory. [00:04:21] Speaker 01: I call up the union, I sign my membership card and my checkoff card on the same date. [00:04:25] Speaker 01: This happens all of the time, it's very common. [00:04:28] Speaker 01: I call up the union, I say, what day did I become a member? [00:04:31] Speaker 01: The union says, oh, we'll tell you that, it's April 1st. [00:04:34] Speaker 01: Well, will you give me my checkoff card? [00:04:36] Speaker 01: No, we can't give that, it's the same date. [00:04:38] Speaker 04: That makes it discriminatory. [00:04:45] Speaker 01: But the only difference between those two is the Union's pecuniary interest. [00:04:49] Speaker 01: The Union designs this 15-day window period. [00:04:51] Speaker 04: It doesn't have to have a 15-day window period. [00:04:57] Speaker 04: well what doesn't make it a lawful there isn't any case law to suggest that and intuitively it doesn't even make sense that they have a requirement that you put it in writing that's not even intuitively wrong there's certainly nothing in the law that says that it's impermissible well well first i want i want to get back to the the dfr standard it's annoying doesn't make it unlawful [00:05:17] Speaker 01: Well, it is because they are fiduciary, and they have a high standard of fair dealing. [00:05:22] Speaker 04: Judge Tatel recognized- You have a much higher standard to prove a breach of the duty of fair representation. [00:05:27] Speaker 01: Well, you know, there's an ebb and a flow to this. [00:05:31] Speaker 01: So the union's duty is at its lowest power when it's not operating in its representational capacity. [00:05:37] Speaker 01: Judge Tatel recognized this in Plumbers and Pipefitters, which we cite on page 19 of our brief. [00:05:44] Speaker 01: And there, he said, when the union is acting outside of its representational abilities, the union has a high standard of fair dealing. [00:05:53] Speaker 01: And the same as the Supreme Court said in Berninger, excuse me, Berninger, that when the employee stands against the union as an institution, the duty of fair representation is at its highest point. [00:06:06] Speaker 04: I'm still not getting it. [00:06:07] Speaker 04: They were not refusing to give the information. [00:06:10] Speaker 04: And indeed, when they got the written request, they gave it. [00:06:13] Speaker 04: Your response is simply, but then the mails follow it up. [00:06:16] Speaker 04: That's not a response. [00:06:17] Speaker 01: Well, it's time-sensitive and immediately accessible. [00:06:20] Speaker 01: That's what makes a difference. [00:06:21] Speaker 02: We're asking for a very, very... But the record is against you on immediately accessible. [00:06:26] Speaker 02: I mean, the record indicates that sometimes the date that's inputted into the computer is wrong. [00:06:32] Speaker 02: And sometimes they have to actually go find the dues card with the checkoff and that it's not always immediately accessible. [00:06:40] Speaker 02: And the record, well, it's not the record, it's a board decision, is that if they give the wrong date, then that's an unfair labor practice. [00:06:47] Speaker 02: So they can't screw it up because then that's a ULP. [00:06:52] Speaker 01: Well, I disagree on the record. [00:06:54] Speaker 01: First, at JA 5354, the union business agent testifies she can access this in under a minute or two. [00:07:03] Speaker 01: So it takes, you know, a minute almost all of the time. [00:07:06] Speaker 01: In this case, she could have all the time. [00:07:08] Speaker 01: In this case, Clusa's dates weren't entered wrong. [00:07:11] Speaker 02: So the board is supposed to make a decision based on this case, because it could be done easily this case, then that's the standard for every case? [00:07:20] Speaker 01: Well, I don't know if it's the standard for every case, but in this case, the question is, does the union have, A, a reasonable reason to deny it? [00:07:29] Speaker 04: None of these reasons appear in the board's opinion. [00:07:31] Speaker 04: Did the union invoke a reasonable rule? [00:07:33] Speaker 04: Did they follow a reasonable rule? [00:07:35] Speaker 04: Did they follow it? [00:07:36] Speaker 04: Was their procedural rule permissible? [00:07:39] Speaker 04: It's not whether there was a mess up. [00:07:42] Speaker 04: that was inadvertent. [00:07:44] Speaker 04: It's whether the rule that they were following was a reasonable rule, and if not, was it so bad that it violated the duty of their representation? [00:07:51] Speaker 04: I don't know how you get there with this case where all they're saying is, [00:07:56] Speaker 04: just send it through some writing, and when they did, the union got the information. [00:08:00] Speaker 01: Yeah, but there's all these other cases, too, like California's law, Felter. [00:08:06] Speaker 01: Felter specifically, the Supreme Court, said, process can't trump an individual's rights, and an individual has a right to learn this information. [00:08:15] Speaker 01: It's extremely time sensitive, because if they miss it by one day, the employee's on the hook for the rest of the year. [00:08:21] Speaker 03: But if they call, say they call a day late, then they've missed it. [00:08:25] Speaker 03: Here, you have to request in writing presumably, say, a week ahead of time to accommodate the mail and what have you. [00:08:33] Speaker 03: But, I mean, there are a lot of requirements that agencies have and courts have and everyone has for things in writing. [00:08:43] Speaker 03: And there are pain. [00:08:44] Speaker 03: I agree, there are pain. [00:08:45] Speaker 03: But does that make it unreasonable? [00:08:47] Speaker 01: Well, it does make it unreasonable when there's a fiduciary and when it is easily accessible. [00:08:50] Speaker 01: I want to get back to the point is they admitted that Calusa's card was in the record. [00:08:55] Speaker 01: It would have taken her 30 seconds to look it up. [00:08:58] Speaker 03: And if the union wants to protect itself... But there are other interests they cite, and I... [00:09:03] Speaker 03: understand you're going to say these are bureaucratic impediments that are unnecessary. [00:09:09] Speaker 03: But they do say, look, if we get it in writing, then that avoids mistakes. [00:09:15] Speaker 03: It avoids litigation. [00:09:17] Speaker 03: There's some work in privacy interests. [00:09:21] Speaker 03: And it does take some time to do it over the phone. [00:09:25] Speaker 03: And I hear, Jan, that just seems like a pain and unnecessary, and that's probably true, but is it unreasonable to do that when so many things are requested and required in writing? [00:09:36] Speaker 01: Well, the boards tell other requirements that things be in writing B are unreasonable or violated by the act. [00:09:44] Speaker 01: For example, it can't require membership resignations in the act. [00:09:48] Speaker 01: And this is a rule to be in writing. [00:09:50] Speaker 01: You can give verbal membership resignations under the act. [00:09:53] Speaker 01: And this is a rule that's unwritten. [00:09:54] Speaker 01: Nobody knows about it until they call and it's sprung on them. [00:09:58] Speaker 01: And then they have to go through another process. [00:10:00] Speaker 01: And it's similar to the certified mail requirement that was struck down in California Song. [00:10:06] Speaker 01: It's similar to the dual resignation requirement that was struck down in Felter and then adopted by the board later. [00:10:18] Speaker 01: So it's part and parcel that, as a fiduciary, they have a duty of loyalty and honesty. [00:10:27] Speaker 01: Again, the Union doesn't have to have this 15-day window period. [00:10:31] Speaker 01: And I would also point to the Fifth Circuit's decision in Shea and the Ninth Circuit's decision in Robisky, where they said that a Union's pure interest in its own pecuniary interests is not reasonable under the duty of fair representation. [00:10:45] Speaker 01: And that's what the Union is relying on here. [00:10:47] Speaker 01: That's what's really happening here. [00:10:50] Speaker 03: They're not relying on that. [00:10:51] Speaker 03: That's what you think is really happening. [00:10:55] Speaker 01: Well, if the union wants to protect itself, they can send a letter in response to a phone call. [00:11:02] Speaker 01: They can send an email in response to the phone call. [00:11:05] Speaker 01: It's very easy. [00:11:06] Speaker 04: That all misses the point. [00:11:07] Speaker 04: The fact that the union can do this 27 other ways doesn't tell us whether this is a breach of the duty of fair representation. [00:11:17] Speaker 04: The fact that you can think of more convenient, less obvious [00:11:21] Speaker 01: That's not consistent with board law, because I would point again to operating engineers. [00:11:28] Speaker 01: Operating engineers specifically says the union can't rely on more complex ways. [00:11:32] Speaker 01: If you can present an easier way, then it's not reasonable. [00:11:35] Speaker 01: And we're presenting an easier way. [00:11:37] Speaker 04: And this is a case... [00:11:50] Speaker 01: under the arbitrary standard. [00:11:52] Speaker 01: But we're also arguing this is discriminatory. [00:11:54] Speaker 01: But we don't think that this is necessarily arbitrary, because it's not just any justification. [00:12:02] Speaker 01: It has to be a reasoned justification. [00:12:03] Speaker 01: And the three justifications that the board has now produced that appear nowhere in the decision. [00:12:07] Speaker 01: Of course, the decision is just a case that says, well, there's no duty. [00:12:11] Speaker 01: Well, obviously, there's a duty to respond. [00:12:13] Speaker 01: Six board cases say they have the duty to respond orally. [00:12:18] Speaker 01: But this is a case where it's easily accessible and it's time sensitive. [00:12:22] Speaker 01: And so in a very narrow circumstance, I would say they have to produce it under the fiduciary duty. [00:12:29] Speaker 03: What if it took five minutes to access the information? [00:12:32] Speaker 01: That'd be a much different case. [00:12:34] Speaker 01: That would be slightly more burdensome, but that's not the case here. [00:12:37] Speaker 01: We're asking for a very narrow case where she said she could look it up under two minutes. [00:12:41] Speaker 01: Palusa's card was scanned into the system. [00:12:43] Speaker 01: She could easily access it. [00:12:44] Speaker 01: She could verify their information. [00:12:47] Speaker 01: She testified, I can verify who they are based on their social security number if they tell me over the phone. [00:12:53] Speaker 01: So there's really no privacy interest. [00:12:55] Speaker 01: There's no time interest. [00:12:57] Speaker 01: This is just a hurdle that the union has erected to stop people from getting out. [00:13:02] Speaker 01: I want to give an example of a different situation. [00:13:05] Speaker 01: Let's say I had a [00:13:08] Speaker 01: You know, I call my cable company. [00:13:10] Speaker 01: I say, when can I get out of my contract? [00:13:12] Speaker 01: They say, we're not going to tell you. [00:13:15] Speaker 01: We're not going to tell you unless you send a letter. [00:13:17] Speaker 01: You'd say, oh my gosh, this is ridiculous. [00:13:19] Speaker 01: You can just tell me. [00:13:20] Speaker 01: They say, no, you don't have to send a letter. [00:13:21] Speaker 01: We just want to be really certain. [00:13:23] Speaker 01: Well, everybody would know that, well, you're just operating in your own interest. [00:13:27] Speaker 01: You're just trying to hassle me. [00:13:28] Speaker 01: This is exactly what the union's doing here. [00:13:31] Speaker 03: And that's what makes it a violation. [00:13:32] Speaker 03: I think the cable company in your hypo would say they're trying to avoid making mistakes where someone, the wrong person, calls and cuts off your cable. [00:13:41] Speaker 03: Like your neighbor is pranking you and cutting off your cable. [00:13:45] Speaker 01: Sure, but if you can verify like the evening came, you can say, okay, well tell me your social security number, we can look it up in our system. [00:13:52] Speaker 01: It's very, very simple. [00:13:54] Speaker 01: The cable company example is even, this is even worse, because the union, as Judge Taylor recognized in Plumbers and Pipefitters, owes a fiduciary responsibility to these people, a high standard of fair dealing. [00:14:06] Speaker 01: And, you know, yeah, it's a letter, but a letter's no different under board law in our opinion than [00:14:12] Speaker 01: the certified mail request that is deemed illegal, the resigning on a union provided form that was declared illegal. [00:14:19] Speaker 01: We think it's part and parcel. [00:14:21] Speaker 01: And the union's justifications, we present a much easier, much simpler way. [00:14:25] Speaker 01: When it's time sensitive information, the employees bear all of the brunt of this. [00:14:31] Speaker 03: So and part of your argument is that they just didn't explain it sufficiently. [00:14:34] Speaker 01: That's right. [00:14:35] Speaker 01: It's there's there's nothing nobody knows about this until they call. [00:14:39] Speaker 01: It's not on the card. [00:14:41] Speaker 03: So even if let's say we were [00:14:46] Speaker 03: uncertain about the rationale. [00:14:49] Speaker 03: We could remand, you're part of your argument, just to be clear, we could remand the board for it to explain this in more detail and then we could assess it. [00:14:57] Speaker 01: I think at the very least we get a remand. [00:14:59] Speaker 01: The board's decision is really skeletal and it doesn't address all of these other factors that we've listed here today. [00:15:07] Speaker 01: So you could definitely remand but [00:15:09] Speaker 01: you know, our opinion remains futile because if you look at the fiduciary duty, if you look at the unique facts in this case, we're only asking for a very narrow ruling, this policy is illegal under the duty. [00:15:19] Speaker 03: Right, but we have a deferential standard, so we have to be careful before jumping in. [00:15:23] Speaker 01: Yeah, and I don't think the deferential standard applies because this is a very skeletal opinion, and then even if you look, even if they brought it back up on these facts for all the reasons we list. [00:15:33] Speaker 03: Okay, we'll give you some time in rebuttal, thank you. [00:15:46] Speaker 00: May I please the court? [00:15:48] Speaker 00: I'm Kyle DeCant on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board. [00:15:51] Speaker 00: The petitioners never mentioned the standard for arbitrariness in violation of the duty of fair representation, which is that the union's policy must be so far outside of a wide range of reasonableness as to be irrational. [00:16:04] Speaker 00: And so as the board found when assessing the union's policy, when an employee requests their authorization date from the union, it has a need to ensure that the union provides the correct employee with the correct information. [00:16:17] Speaker 00: The respondent's brief provides precedent where a union can be liable for providing the incorrect information to an employee. [00:16:23] Speaker 00: And so against that background, the board [00:16:26] Speaker 00: when analyzing the union's policy, found that the request in writing allows the union to properly verify and create a paper trail to ensure that the employee is receiving the correct information. [00:16:37] Speaker 04: And your argument is it doesn't take very long to write an opinion when you're looking at that standard duty of fair representation and the facts are uncontested. [00:16:47] Speaker 04: It's a no-brainer. [00:16:49] Speaker 04: It doesn't take a long opinion to explain. [00:16:51] Speaker 04: There's nothing to explain. [00:16:53] Speaker 00: Yes, Your Honor, the Union's rationale was fairly clear, and the Board applied the precedent clearly, which is that the policy is not so far outside a wide range of reasonableness as to be irrational. [00:17:03] Speaker 04: I mean, that's what I'm concerned about, the standard of review. [00:17:08] Speaker 04: The legal standard, the applicable legal standard here is very, very tough. [00:17:12] Speaker 04: The duty of fair representation, and you correctly stated it. [00:17:16] Speaker 04: It requires a big, big showing of the claimant. [00:17:19] Speaker 04: The question here is if they even come close to that. [00:17:24] Speaker 00: That's correct, Your Honor. [00:17:25] Speaker 04: What do you say about the, they think there's precedent dead on that's dispositive? [00:17:32] Speaker 04: What's your response? [00:17:33] Speaker 00: Your Honor, those cases are about when the union flat out denies giving information to employees. [00:17:38] Speaker 00: Here, the union has a system for giving the information, and it says if you put the request in writing, that allows us to properly verify it, and they can match the records of the paper trail. [00:17:47] Speaker 00: The union has one director of operations with a small staff that oversees a membership of over 50,000 members. [00:17:53] Speaker 00: And so they have a system that allows them to properly verify the information and ensure that the right information gets to the right employee. [00:18:00] Speaker 03: On a liability, couldn't they [00:18:03] Speaker 03: follow up with a, after getting the information on the phone, follow up with a letter or email confirming the information so that there is no misunderstanding. [00:18:14] Speaker 00: They can, your honor, but this is the system that the union chose, and this was the system that the board evaluated. [00:18:20] Speaker 00: The union could have had a different policy, and the board would apply the standard to that. [00:18:24] Speaker 00: But in this system, the union preferred the request to be in writing and that they have the option to submit the authorization card. [00:18:33] Speaker 00: So there's no dispute over who said what and when it was said. [00:18:37] Speaker 03: And where should I look in the board's opinion for the explanation of why this is [00:18:44] Speaker 03: permissible, and all the interests you cite. [00:18:47] Speaker 00: Yes, Your Honor. [00:18:48] Speaker 00: So that would be when they cite to mail handlers local 307, when they point out that the standard for in a case like this [00:18:58] Speaker 00: I apologize. [00:18:59] Speaker 00: Yeah, the standard for when a case like this is when the union chooses whether and how to get that info, the standard is whether the policy is so far outside a wide range of reasonableness as to be rational. [00:19:11] Speaker 00: You can also look to postal service, where the board considered when employees submitted a request and they responded to with [00:19:25] Speaker 00: the information about what their date was as long as the request was in writing. [00:19:29] Speaker 00: And so through a clear application of these precedents and these standards, the union's rationale is not so far outside of a wide range of reasonableness. [00:19:38] Speaker 03: But they didn't discuss, I mean, I don't, I'm not sure they need to discuss, but they didn't discuss the different rationales that support this, the privacy, the avoid litigation, [00:19:55] Speaker 03: protection from the wrong date, the verification, all the different interests that you cite in your brief are not laid out in the opinion. [00:20:02] Speaker 00: Your Honor, they discussed the credibility of Union Director of Operations Wanda Henry and what she said, and they note that nothing said by the petitioners is sufficient to meet the very clear standard for demonstrating that this would be arbitrary and violation of the duty of fair representation. [00:20:20] Speaker 00: And so, given the rationale provided by the union and the credibility analysis, the board found that it's a very clear application of precedent and that a rule asking for there to be a paper trail and that the union can verify the request and properly give the correct information to the correct employee is simply not so far outside a wide range of reasonableness as to be irrational. [00:20:44] Speaker 00: So on to the two other points of the duty of fair representation. [00:20:49] Speaker 00: The petitioners are unable to demonstrate that the union's policy is discriminatory because the policy of requiring written requests for the authorization date was applied uniformly to the entire class of employees who had signed authorization cards. [00:21:02] Speaker 00: And the petitioners are unable to demonstrate that the policy is unrelated to [00:21:06] Speaker 00: any legitimate union motive because the union has well established that it has a need to provide the correct information to the correct employees consistent with its duty of fair representation. [00:21:18] Speaker 00: And furthermore, onto the petitioner's argument that bad faith is involved here, they also have to meet a demanding standard there for showing that the union has acted in bad faith. [00:21:29] Speaker 00: And in doing so, the petitioners would need to show fraud, deceitful or dishonest action that is significantly egregious or so intentionally misleading as to be invidious. [00:21:38] Speaker 00: And here the union told the employees when they called, the same policy that gave out every time, it acted wholly in good faith, and there was no difference in how it treated these employees versus any other. [00:21:51] Speaker 00: And this all goes back to the fact that the board applies the arbitrary and the standard in cases like this. [00:21:56] Speaker 00: And it found that having a policy that allows the union to create a paper trail that the union finds is the most effective way for it to provide this information to these employees is most consistent with its duty of fair representation because it's not so far outside of a wide range of reasonableness as to be irrational. [00:22:16] Speaker 00: The court has no further questions. [00:22:18] Speaker 00: Okay, thank you. [00:22:19] Speaker 00: Thank you. [00:22:29] Speaker 01: A remand would be appropriate because there's nothing in the board's decision that says it's private. [00:22:33] Speaker 01: They never adopt that. [00:22:35] Speaker 01: There's nothing in the board's decision that says that the union has a litigation interest. [00:22:41] Speaker 01: So a remand has to be the answer here. [00:22:44] Speaker 01: The board's decision is just too skeletal to withstand review. [00:22:48] Speaker 03: Well, they cite the cases and the interests for requests in writing. [00:22:52] Speaker 03: I think their argument would be [00:22:54] Speaker 01: Well, the cases they tried are pretty are pretty an opposite. [00:22:57] Speaker 01: Like local 307 dealt with a duty of fair representation in bargaining where a person signed a settlement agreed agreement that said they didn't have a right to agreements. [00:23:08] Speaker 01: Postal Service 302, the union didn't even have dates for checkoffs in that case. [00:23:13] Speaker 01: So union obviously doesn't have a duty to give what it doesn't have. [00:23:16] Speaker 03: So on our standard of review, [00:23:19] Speaker 03: We'd have to say that the, I think, that the board was unreasonable in finding what the union did was reasonable. [00:23:28] Speaker 01: Yeah. [00:23:30] Speaker 01: Yeah. [00:23:30] Speaker 03: But they have to go back and- A double level, though, of deference, arguably, because the board's applying or analyzing the union's actions with some level of deference to the union. [00:23:43] Speaker 03: We're, in turn, applying a level of deference to the board. [00:23:46] Speaker 01: I want to dispute the level of deference. [00:23:49] Speaker 01: OK. [00:23:49] Speaker 01: That's a big problem for you. [00:23:52] Speaker 01: Well, this court, specifically in Plumbers and Pipe Footers, Judge Taito wrote that O'Neill, the case that they rely on, is cabin to its facts. [00:23:58] Speaker 01: It's cabin to its facts about when the union is operating in its representational capacity, when it's negotiating an agreement. [00:24:05] Speaker 01: Here, what the union is doing is it's standing against the employees on a term and condition of employment, which is where the duty, as Judge Taito recognized there, was a high standard of fair dealing. [00:24:19] Speaker 01: At this case, I don't know how this case is all that substantively different from what the Supreme Court did in Felter, where they said process can't trump an individual's rights to learn of this information in order to properly revoke. [00:24:32] Speaker 01: It's all that people want to do is they just want to revoke. [00:24:35] Speaker 01: And unless there's any other further questions, I could sit down. [00:24:38] Speaker 03: OK, thank you very much. [00:24:39] Speaker 03: Case is submitted.