[00:00:00] Speaker 00: Case number 20-1469 et al, New York Baving Inc. [00:00:04] Speaker 00: Petitioner versus National Labor Relations Board. [00:00:07] Speaker 00: Mr. Primoldi for the petitioner, Ms. [00:00:09] Speaker 00: Gigi for the respondent. [00:00:12] Speaker 02: Good morning. [00:00:16] Speaker 04: Good morning, Council, please proceed. [00:00:19] Speaker 02: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:00:20] Speaker 02: If it pleases the court, as we said in our principal brief and our reply brief, the decision here should be overturned. [00:00:28] Speaker 02: While we were pleased with the underlying decision in regards to a finding that there was no violation of the National Labor Relations Act with respect to the discharge of a particular employee, the remainder of the decision is lacking in many respects. [00:00:45] Speaker 02: The first thing that I'd like to point out to the court [00:00:49] Speaker 02: and it's been characterized as harmless by the board, but it's far from harmless, is their decision to wrongfully admit a collective bargaining agreement. [00:00:59] Speaker 02: And to me, when you have a National Labor Relations Board case, a collective bargaining agreement is the equivalent of a statute or a regulation or a mandate that you're trying to argue doesn't apply to you. [00:01:11] Speaker 02: The hearing had closed. [00:01:13] Speaker 02: the general counsel at the board never put the CBA in. [00:01:17] Speaker 02: That was a calculated decision. [00:01:19] Speaker 02: It wasn't hidden away. [00:01:20] Speaker 02: It wasn't some foreign document that was unavailable. [00:01:24] Speaker 02: It was a calculated decision. [00:01:28] Speaker 02: We submitted post hearing briefs to the judge. [00:01:30] Speaker 02: We squarely said no collective bar and agreement. [00:01:34] Speaker 02: There should be an adverse inference. [00:01:36] Speaker 02: And rather than [00:01:39] Speaker 02: agree with our decision to see the administrative law judge essentially corrected the general counsel's calculated decision and allowed the collective bargaining agreement in. [00:01:51] Speaker 02: We had no opportunity to cross examine anybody from charge and party [00:01:56] Speaker 02: And we could have probably used the collective bargaining agreement to show that the charging party's terms did not apply to the work that's in question here. [00:02:08] Speaker 02: Now, you may say, well, why didn't we put the collective bargaining agreement in? [00:02:11] Speaker 02: Well, why should we? [00:02:12] Speaker 02: I mean, this is something that should have been the job of the National Labor Relations Board. [00:02:18] Speaker 04: But if the board found that it was error and said it wasn't going to rely at all on the collective bargaining agreement, [00:02:26] Speaker 04: so long as if we find that the board did not in fact lie on the collective bargaining agreement in any of its rulings, then why, how are you harmed? [00:02:40] Speaker 02: It smacks of fairness. [00:02:42] Speaker 02: That's the first thing. [00:02:43] Speaker 02: The second thing is, if I had that collective bargain agreement in my hand and they had put their witnesses on, I probably would have been able to show the judge that it just didn't apply to the particular evidence. [00:02:58] Speaker 02: It's essentially a tree that never grew. [00:03:03] Speaker 02: It could have been all sorts of fruit that came from it if we had the opportunity to have that agreement there. [00:03:09] Speaker 02: It was a calculated decision. [00:03:12] Speaker 02: I believe that you cannot [00:03:15] Speaker 02: Well, the court could do whatever it wants, but I would argue that you can't have this type of violation being found by the board in the absence of giving us the opportunity to, at least in fairness, have the opportunity to argue that the collective bargaining agreement was essential to their case. [00:03:33] Speaker 02: They didn't make a prima facie case. [00:03:36] Speaker 02: And by the way they amended their own board rules, so that this doesn't ever happen again. [00:03:43] Speaker 02: That's how bad this violation was, we could have. [00:03:49] Speaker 02: We could have used, by the way, the collective bargaining agreement is not even a New York Paving collective bargaining agreement. [00:03:54] Speaker 02: It's a collective bargaining agreement that's an employer association agreement. [00:03:58] Speaker 02: I could have asked anybody who they put on the stand from charging party, how is it applied to Trimestine? [00:04:04] Speaker 02: How is it applied to NECO? [00:04:06] Speaker 02: These are two companies that do the type of work that New York Paving does. [00:04:13] Speaker 01: And we'll never you could have you could have asked those questions, even if it wasn't in evidence. [00:04:19] Speaker 01: I mean, the board follows basically follows the federal rules of evidence. [00:04:23] Speaker 01: And you can cross examine someone about a particular document, even if you don't put the document in evidence. [00:04:31] Speaker 01: So why were you how, you know, come back to the question that Judge Wilkins is asking, I don't see how you were prejudiced at all. [00:04:39] Speaker 02: Your honor, with all due respect, I would argue that the collective bargaining agreement is the cornerstone to them arguing that we should have bargained in good faith. [00:04:48] Speaker 02: If you're going to say that this is local 175 work, where's your basis? [00:04:52] Speaker 02: Your basis is the collective bargaining agreement. [00:04:55] Speaker 02: The collective bargaining agreement is more than just an email or a letter. [00:04:59] Speaker 02: It is a foundational document that establishes the relationship between the two parties. [00:05:05] Speaker 02: That would be my answer. [00:05:07] Speaker 02: And yes, we did try to bring in other evidence. [00:05:10] Speaker 02: I think we were very persuasive in bringing it. [00:05:13] Speaker 02: That goes to other points in our appeal. [00:05:15] Speaker 03: Can I ask you, Mr. Peralde, about part of your argument is that you were not able to negotiate with Hallen over the contract that was ultimately formed. [00:05:26] Speaker 03: And I'm wondering, can you tell me a little bit about how the bidding process with Hallen worked? [00:05:32] Speaker 03: So when you put a bid in, [00:05:34] Speaker 03: I think New York Paving's position is that you weren't aware of the terms that would be in the contract. [00:05:41] Speaker 03: And then you receive the contract in January. [00:05:43] Speaker 03: So I was wondering if, I mean, I'm just wondering sometimes with a bidding process, you're required to accept a contract if your bid is accepted. [00:05:52] Speaker 03: So if you could just tell me how the bidding process worked. [00:05:56] Speaker 02: The way it was in this case was, first of all, just to take two steps back, we're a union shop. [00:06:02] Speaker 02: We have a lot of unions that work for us. [00:06:04] Speaker 02: We give a lot of work to 175. [00:06:06] Speaker 02: We're talking about a tiny little fraction of work, and that fraction of work was covered by the Howlin contract. [00:06:12] Speaker 02: And the Howland contract, these are big players, just like Con Edison is and National Grid. [00:06:18] Speaker 02: If you know anything about the New York City area, it's something comparable to the fact that if I wanted to do oral argument today before all three of you, no, I basically had to participate via Zoom. [00:06:32] Speaker 02: Howland used us in the past. [00:06:34] Speaker 02: We did contract work for them. [00:06:37] Speaker 02: We used 175 work. [00:06:39] Speaker 02: We didn't think the 175 would be an issue. [00:06:42] Speaker 02: because they let us do it in the past. [00:06:45] Speaker 02: And now this time they came in with the contract. [00:06:47] Speaker 02: It's in the record. [00:06:49] Speaker 02: I think it's 8302, if you want to find where the clause is. [00:06:53] Speaker 02: And they said, this is what you had to use. [00:06:54] Speaker 02: You had to use members of a particular, who are members of the buildings council. [00:07:01] Speaker 03: I guess if you could answer my question though, I'm not sure. [00:07:04] Speaker 03: Did you have the ability to negotiate after they had accepted your bid? [00:07:12] Speaker 02: No, it was basically, here it is, take it. [00:07:15] Speaker 02: If we didn't take it, they would find someone else to take it. [00:07:20] Speaker 03: Or were you required to take it once your bid was accepted? [00:07:26] Speaker 03: I'm not sure what the terms of the bidding was. [00:07:32] Speaker 03: I think that is potentially relevant to some of your arguments, but I didn't see anything about the bidding process in the record. [00:07:40] Speaker 02: To my knowledge, it was a take it or leave it. [00:07:42] Speaker 02: I mean, these are big players. [00:07:44] Speaker 02: If we didn't agree to use the local 1010 workers for that particular work, the contract just wouldn't have been given to us because Hallen was required now to make sure their subcontractors use unions that were part of the building trades. [00:08:02] Speaker 02: And for the life of me, I don't know why local 175 doesn't become a member of that particular organization. [00:08:09] Speaker 02: I mean, this case is so upsetting because of the CBA and also the fact that Local 175 does not want to be part of an organization where the Halen expects you to be part, to use members of that association. [00:08:31] Speaker 02: I think it was a take it or leave it, Your Honor. [00:08:36] Speaker 02: We also believe that the board woefully failed when it came to the substantial evidence when it came to the six month statute of limitations argument we made. [00:08:48] Speaker 02: I mean it was so clear and obvious these local 175 shop stewards are at our [00:08:54] Speaker 02: yard, they see trucks going in and going out. [00:08:58] Speaker 02: I mean, it's the equivalent of someone who normally plays football, seeing helmets and pads and footballs going out. [00:09:06] Speaker 02: You know they're going to be playing a game of football. [00:09:08] Speaker 02: It was seen by, we have emails, we have testimonial evidence, and the board made short shrift of it. [00:09:15] Speaker 02: They didn't address it. [00:09:17] Speaker 02: in any meaningful way. [00:09:19] Speaker 02: And we believe that they had knowledge as far back as April of 2018, and they waited until January of 2019 to file their unfair labor practice charge. [00:09:31] Speaker 02: I believe, based on everything I've read in its totality, that initially they didn't see that as a violation. [00:09:37] Speaker 02: They thought it was covered under the regulations that were now in effect. [00:09:41] Speaker 02: There was a favorable Section 10K decision from the board itself. [00:09:45] Speaker 02: which gave a portion of the asphalt work to local 1010. [00:09:51] Speaker 02: Even their own union attorney, Chaikin, said in a prior hearing, he thought that this type of work was basically related to concrete work. [00:10:00] Speaker 02: I mean, if you're going to cut into a sidewalk, there's no such thing as an asphalt sidewalk. [00:10:05] Speaker 02: It's a concrete sidewalk. [00:10:07] Speaker 02: We're talking about a very thin layer of asphalt on top of a sidewalk or in a street. [00:10:14] Speaker 02: And somehow they must have thought otherwise, and then they filed, but filed too late in January 2019. [00:10:22] Speaker 02: I see that my clock is done for my eight minutes. [00:10:27] Speaker 02: All right. [00:10:27] Speaker 04: We'll hear from you on rebuttal. [00:10:29] Speaker 04: We'll hear from the board. [00:10:35] Speaker 00: Good morning, Your Honors. [00:10:36] Speaker 00: Barbara Shiggy for the National Labor Relations Board. [00:10:39] Speaker 00: I want to just touch on a couple of things that you were speaking with with my opposing counsel there. [00:10:44] Speaker 00: But the first thing I want to talk about is Judge Rao asked about the bidding process. [00:10:48] Speaker 00: And I think Your Honor is absolutely correct. [00:10:50] Speaker 00: There is nothing in the record. [00:10:51] Speaker 00: There are a lot of assertions that it was a take it or leave it contract and references to I don't think there's any dispute that these are big players in the New York construction industry. [00:11:00] Speaker 00: But I think what is the most relevant point [00:11:04] Speaker 00: is rather than speculating, was it take it or leave it? [00:11:07] Speaker 00: I think it was because these people were these kinds of construction guys. [00:11:10] Speaker 00: We know there is nothing in the record that New York Paving had to accept the contract and could do nothing with Halen. [00:11:18] Speaker 00: And in fact, I think a very important point in that regard is that the New York Paving, the company says they were surprised actually when the terms came in, because notwithstanding the fact that Con Ed had required [00:11:33] Speaker 00: this building trade council membership before, it had never been enforced. [00:11:37] Speaker 00: So Halen had allowed Local 175, a non-member, to do work even under a content contract. [00:11:45] Speaker 00: And so you could speculate further that it could have been take it or leave it, or it could have been that New York Paving, had they tried to go to Halen and say, hey, listen, I see this new term in here. [00:11:57] Speaker 00: You've let us in the past slide on this. [00:11:59] Speaker 00: Any chance we could negotiate six months grace period? [00:12:03] Speaker 00: or 12 months or anything. [00:12:04] Speaker 00: There's nothing in the record that... Ms. [00:12:06] Speaker 03: Sheehy, what about under the general terms and conditions, which is on the appendix of page 264, it says, for acceptance of the contract, the subcontractor may accept this agreement only by signing and returning it to the contractor without modification within three days. [00:12:26] Speaker 03: Does that suggest it's a take it or leave it contract? [00:12:28] Speaker 00: I don't believe so. [00:12:30] Speaker 00: My understanding of contract language, I don't think that that's an unusual aspect to have in there. [00:12:35] Speaker 00: And I don't know that we know, for instance, I think that's standard language in a contract. [00:12:39] Speaker 00: And I don't think it's fair to say that all the time that means no modifications. [00:12:45] Speaker 00: We know that parties can modify terms. [00:12:48] Speaker 00: We know that the lawyers have drafted them up and tried to make them airtight. [00:12:51] Speaker 00: But at the end of the day, no, I don't know that there was any evidence that somebody tried or somebody read that and said, [00:12:58] Speaker 00: We didn't think we could do anything. [00:13:00] Speaker 00: What the testimony was, was Maselli said they got the contract sometime in early January and they signed it. [00:13:07] Speaker 00: So you have knowledge of the terms at the time of signature, because it wasn't executed until January 9. [00:13:14] Speaker 00: And you have at the time, they know they have an existing contract with Local 175, even in this multi sort of employer thing. [00:13:23] Speaker 00: An employer that knowingly executed a contract that put it on contrary terms with an existing contract. [00:13:30] Speaker 00: I think that's the fundamental. [00:13:32] Speaker 00: That is what the record shows. [00:13:34] Speaker 00: The record doesn't show that it was a take it or leave it. [00:13:37] Speaker 00: Certainly there are aspects of a take it or leave it in that agreement, like your honor just pointed out. [00:13:41] Speaker 00: But as I said, there are elements that are completely missing too in the record. [00:13:45] Speaker 00: That new york paving didn't even try pick up the phone and call halen and say hey I see there's no modification. [00:13:51] Speaker 00: This is really going to put us in a bind We already have a cba. [00:13:54] Speaker 00: What can we do? [00:13:55] Speaker 00: So I think the the biggest point that I wanted to make although i've done it in quite a roundabout way is there is nothing in the record to support the notion that it was a take it or leave it and even if it was even counsel was there Sorry, was there language in the the contract? [00:14:12] Speaker 04: that said that um [00:14:15] Speaker 04: that the subcontractor, I guess, could get prior approval from Con Ed to use a union that was not a part of this conglomeration? [00:14:26] Speaker 00: Not that I'm aware of, not that I'm aware of. [00:14:29] Speaker 00: I was only relying on the fact that this restriction has existed before, had existed before, and that restriction notwithstanding, Halen and New York Paving were continuing to use non-members to the council. [00:14:42] Speaker 00: So I was suggesting [00:14:43] Speaker 00: that even though your honor's right, there's nothing in the contract that says that they could do that, but there's nothing saying they can't and the past practice or the past relationship rather between these parties suggested that it was possible. [00:14:56] Speaker 00: But let's remember, even if it was a take it or leave it contract, there's no reason that New York Paving couldn't leave the contract then. [00:15:05] Speaker 00: Let's say they couldn't change it, the record was clear, but what they still could do is they had an existing [00:15:11] Speaker 00: contractual or past practice relationship with Local 175. [00:15:15] Speaker 00: They could have walked away. [00:15:17] Speaker 00: They could have not done the asphalt work rather than enter into a contract with Halen that they're claiming they couldn't modify. [00:15:23] Speaker 00: But even if that's true, they needed to notify 175 then and bargain over the discontinuation of that work. [00:15:31] Speaker 00: They did nothing. [00:15:31] Speaker 00: They signed a contract knowing at the time they signed it that it conflicted with an existing contract and then claim after the fact we could do nothing. [00:15:39] Speaker 00: And the board does not accept that. [00:15:41] Speaker 00: as fulfilling its obligation to bargain under the law. [00:15:45] Speaker 04: And I'd like to move just quickly to, because I think- Can I just ask a quick question about remedy, even if we agree with you? [00:15:54] Speaker 04: Sure. [00:15:55] Speaker 04: That was a violation. [00:15:56] Speaker 04: How is a remedy to rescind the unilateral transfer of the work to local 1010 [00:16:04] Speaker 04: the proper remedy instead of a make whole remedy, um, as was done in Nico construction and try messing construction. [00:16:13] Speaker 00: I thought that the order was both to be honest. [00:16:16] Speaker 00: I thought it was, let me check. [00:16:16] Speaker 00: I thought it was a rescission and right. [00:16:23] Speaker 00: So there's, if you look at, um, sorry, my page numbers are different than the record. [00:16:27] Speaker 00: I think it's two 15 of the appendix. [00:16:28] Speaker 00: It's the page three of the DNO. [00:16:31] Speaker 00: There's both a rescission order. [00:16:33] Speaker 00: and a make-hole remedy. [00:16:41] Speaker 04: So how is the the rescission part in how would that work and how is that really appropriate or enforceable? [00:16:51] Speaker 00: Well how it would work is they would sit there the board's order would require that New York Paving can't give the work to 1010 but [00:17:01] Speaker 00: I think Your Honor is getting at the contract with Halen is going to prevent New York Paid and giving that work to Local 175. [00:17:10] Speaker 00: But what they'll have to do under the order, so they rescind it, so they stop giving the work to Local 1010. [00:17:16] Speaker 00: And then they notice the union, bargain with the union, and then going forward, once they've satisfied their statutory obligation, then under those circumstances, however that shakes out, whether that goes to 1010, or I don't know how else that would work out, [00:17:29] Speaker 00: And then also, in the meantime, there's the make-hole remedy for the local 175 workers who were unlawfully denied the opportunity to do the work until New York Paving had fulfilled its bargaining obligation. [00:17:45] Speaker 00: Now, to be fair, during a compliance hearing, which is, I think, Your Honors all know this, the board operates on a bifurcated process. [00:17:53] Speaker 00: There's the liability phase, which is what we're talking about now, and then there's the [00:17:56] Speaker 00: the compliance phase or the monetary aspect of it. [00:18:00] Speaker 00: During a compliance hearing, certainly, they could come forward and say, they could limit the make whole remedy and say, hey, we shouldn't have to pay for all of these hours because we could not have given you the work. [00:18:12] Speaker 00: The only other scenario would have been if we didn't give it to 1010, it wasn't going to you. [00:18:18] Speaker 00: So during a compliance proceeding, they can raise some of the issues [00:18:22] Speaker 00: as it relates to money that is owed, but as far as the liability portion of it goes, that is rescission first bargaining. [00:18:30] Speaker 00: And then if there's an issue with the make-hole remedy, they could argue, like I said, in compliance that 175 would not have gotten any money irrespective of New York Paving's actions, if that makes sense. [00:18:42] Speaker 00: I don't know if that answers your question. [00:18:44] Speaker 04: Yes, thank you. [00:18:46] Speaker 03: Ms. [00:18:47] Speaker 03: Sheehy, I had a question about [00:18:50] Speaker 03: You know, this issue about whether this change was de minimis, and the board argues that that's a question of fact, you know, that gets substantial, you know, if there's substantial evidence, we uphold the board's decision. [00:19:03] Speaker 03: But I'm wondering, you know, this question of whether a change is de minimis, isn't that more like a mixed question of law and fact? [00:19:16] Speaker 00: I don't think so. [00:19:17] Speaker 00: I think the board, I'm just thinking about your question. [00:19:19] Speaker 00: the board has the board so whether it's the minutes they look at the effect right on the unit. [00:19:26] Speaker 00: But let's remember it to argue. [00:19:27] Speaker 00: So I do think that's a substantiality of the evidence question. [00:19:32] Speaker 00: But on top of that, the let's remember that the board also views the giving of non I'm sorry, the permanent transfer of unit work to non unit employees [00:19:47] Speaker 00: as an adverse effect, triggering a bargaining obligation. [00:19:52] Speaker 00: So the de minimis aspect of it, I think, is a little bit of a red herring. [00:19:55] Speaker 00: And it was addressed by the board, certainly, but it was addressed because the employer raises it. [00:19:59] Speaker 00: The employer, by saying it's de minimis, they concede the violation, right? [00:20:03] Speaker 00: You just say, yes, I committed a violation. [00:20:05] Speaker 00: It just wasn't that big of a deal. [00:20:07] Speaker 00: But what they don't address when they say it's not that big of a deal because it was only 15 hours, it was only 10, or it was power permitting, it was only a four top crew, [00:20:14] Speaker 00: Whatever it was, what they never address, they didn't do it to the board, and they don't do it to this court, they don't address the board issue of any time there's a permanent transfer of unit work to non-unit employees, there's an adverse effect on the unit that triggers a bargaining obligation. [00:20:31] Speaker 00: So I do think, so I'll stand by the board's view that a de minimis finding should be reviewed under substantiality of the evidence, but I'm not even sure the court needs to consider that in this case because of the [00:20:45] Speaker 00: undeniable, indisputable, permanent transfer of work that triggered a bargaining obligation that the employer doesn't contest. [00:20:50] Speaker 00: As far as I can see, they don't take issue with that in any of the filings. [00:20:53] Speaker 03: I mean, there is, it seems to me, some kind of legal question behind that, because the ultimate legal question is whether there's been a change to the terms and conditions of employment. [00:21:05] Speaker 03: right? [00:21:05] Speaker 03: And then these other terms are sort of around that legal question. [00:21:09] Speaker 03: So I mean, isn't there some legal determination that is the board is making ultimately about a violation under the statute? [00:21:19] Speaker 00: Whether there's the violation, certainly your honor is right, but that's also reviewed under a substantiality of the evidence, whether there's been a violation of the statute. [00:21:29] Speaker 00: I believe that this court even reviews a board finding in that regard as under a substantial [00:21:34] Speaker 00: a substantiality of the evidence standard. [00:21:39] Speaker 00: I see my time is up. [00:21:40] Speaker 00: I'm happy to try again if that wasn't satisfactory, but I see my time is up and unless there were other questions or if there's a follow-up Judge Rao. [00:21:49] Speaker 04: Judge Rao. [00:21:51] Speaker 03: I'm fine. [00:21:51] Speaker 03: Thank you. [00:21:52] Speaker 04: Thank you. [00:21:52] Speaker 04: Judge Randolph. [00:21:53] Speaker 04: I don't have any. [00:21:55] Speaker 04: All right. [00:21:55] Speaker 04: Thank you, counsel. [00:21:56] Speaker 04: We'll hear from counsel for New York caving on rebuttal. [00:22:08] Speaker 04: You may proceed, sir. [00:22:09] Speaker 02: I apologize, your honor. [00:22:10] Speaker 02: First of all, New York Paving concedes nothing. [00:22:15] Speaker 02: We believe there was no violation at all. [00:22:17] Speaker 02: We argued the de minimis because it really is de minimis. [00:22:20] Speaker 02: It's an alternative argument. [00:22:22] Speaker 02: We're talking about a fraction, 15 hours. [00:22:25] Speaker 02: We put in a whole bunch of records and we put in testimony which was unrefuted by the board. [00:22:32] Speaker 02: What the board did was go back to a prior hearing and took language [00:22:36] Speaker 02: that really was not applicable to the situation at hand, because this is essentially new work. [00:22:44] Speaker 02: And there is substantial evidence to show that it was in fact a minimish and there was no violation. [00:22:49] Speaker 02: That's number one. [00:22:51] Speaker 02: Number two, I mean, to this, even now, [00:22:55] Speaker 02: My adversary hasn't explained why the board chose not to put the collective bargaining agreement into evidence. [00:23:02] Speaker 02: She doesn't want to seem to answer that question, and I made that front and center of my arguments. [00:23:09] Speaker 02: Number three, the idea that this very large contract that we had with Halen, the way we should have handled it was to walk away from it, not get the work, not give all the [00:23:20] Speaker 02: Other asphalt work that comes with it to 175. [00:23:25] Speaker 02: I mean, I got to tell you how I mean futility is not something we should all strive for in our lives here. [00:23:33] Speaker 02: And I think that's the argument that she's making is that it's a feudal argument. [00:23:36] Speaker 02: We have testimony from Peter Miscelli in the record, and he is a general manager over at New York Pavement. [00:23:47] Speaker 02: And there was nothing they can do. [00:23:49] Speaker 02: This was a dictate that came down from Colin Edison. [00:23:53] Speaker 02: It's no different than me who wanted to do this here and today orally right in front of you live. [00:24:00] Speaker 02: And the court said no, OK, even though the Supreme Court is doing live here and live arguments. [00:24:06] Speaker 02: There are times when you just have to take what's given to you, or you don't get anything. [00:24:13] Speaker 02: I believe my two minutes are up if anybody has any questions. [00:24:17] Speaker 02: I would just simply like to tell the court to not enforce this board order to grant our petition. [00:24:25] Speaker 02: There are fairness problems with it. [00:24:27] Speaker 02: There are substantial evidence problems with it. [00:24:30] Speaker 02: There's a failure to follow the law problems with it. [00:24:33] Speaker 02: It doesn't make any sense. [00:24:35] Speaker 02: It's really contrary to how you run a type of job that you do when it comes to doing concrete and asphalt. [00:24:47] Speaker 04: All right. [00:24:47] Speaker 04: Thank you, counsel. [00:24:49] Speaker 04: We will take the case under advisement.