[00:00:03] Speaker 03:
Case number 21-5049, Benoit Brookins, appellant, versus LaRonda Gamble, President Local 12, AFG, AFL-CIO, et al.

[00:00:12] Speaker 03:
And case number 21-7020, Benoit Brookins, appellant, versus Dino Drudi, et al.

[00:00:18] Speaker 03:
Mr. Brookins for the appellant, Benoit Brookins, Mr. Harris for the appellees, LaRonda Gamble and Dino Drudi, Mr. Serino for the federal appellees.

[00:00:28] Speaker 05:
All right, Mr. Brookins.

[00:00:32] Speaker 05:
Please proceed.

[00:00:40] Speaker 06:
Mr. Burkins, I think you might be on mute.

[00:00:48] Speaker 02:
Can you hear me now?

[00:00:49] Speaker 05:
Yes.

[00:00:49] Speaker 05:
Thank you.

[00:00:50] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:00:52] Speaker 02:
This case is about whether the district court aired and we have two different cases in its reading of the statute.

[00:01:00] Speaker 02:
Um, 20.

[00:01:02] Speaker 02:
a non-USC 419412.

[00:01:04] Speaker 02:
And it's cited, fortunately, in the appellee federal's brief at the appendix, at the addendum page 37.

[00:01:13] Speaker 02:
And the operative words are, any person whose rights secured by the division of this sub-chapter have been infringed by any violation of this sub-chapter may bring a civil action in a district court of the United States with such relief, including injunctions, as may be appropriate.

[00:01:32] Speaker 02:
And with this provision, it started in the election.

[00:01:39] Speaker 02:
And so the question is Mr. Brooklyn's voting rights.

[00:01:43] Speaker 02:
And the primary action started in the 2018 election for national president at the AFG 19 2018 convention.

[00:01:56] Speaker 02:
And as a consequence of that,

[00:02:00] Speaker 02:
two actions which are not related to, they are related, but not related.

[00:02:04] Speaker 02:
Two candidates who were running, one was the treasurer for AFGI.

[00:02:09] Speaker 02:
He decided to break ranks with the president and decided to break and run for president himself.

[00:02:14] Speaker 02:
And the second one was the president of Local 12, which is headquartered local where I was based.

[00:02:22] Speaker 02:
And he decided after he had settled an $8 million class action overtime lawsuit that he looked like he was gonna be a candidate

[00:02:30] Speaker 02:
for president for the union.

[00:02:33] Speaker 02:
And of course, if you do a class, you do any kind of class actions and you win or get a settlement, you're going to be telling everybody.

[00:02:42] Speaker 02:
So the national union decided to put local 12 into trusteeship.

[00:02:48] Speaker 02:
And that infringed on my voting rights.

[00:02:52] Speaker 02:
John Lewis says voting is your responsibility.

[00:02:55] Speaker 02:
for voting is your primary non-violent tool.

[00:02:59] Speaker 02:
So I filed my own civil action instead of filing under the federal action I filed in district court saying you're violating my rights by infringing on.

[00:03:12] Speaker 05:
The district court issued an opinion in which it set forth its analysis, all right, of the statute you were relying on as well as an alternative.

[00:03:24] Speaker 05:
and it said you were mistaken, all right?

[00:03:28] Speaker 05:
Because that statute simply didn't authorize the district court to proceed as you wished it to, all right?

[00:03:38] Speaker 05:
So you have to persuade us that the district court's legal analysis was incorrect.

[00:03:46] Speaker 05:
And why do you say it's incorrect?

[00:03:51] Speaker 02:
I think the reason is that

[00:03:54] Speaker 02:
Um, I had, I tried to identify cases where the same issue arose, uh, with other union participants in this district.

[00:04:07] Speaker 02:
Uh, in those cases, there were, there were several cases where union, uh, uh, persons who were at challenge actions to infringing on their rights at the local level or at other council level.

[00:04:19] Speaker 01:
You understand that the banding precedent comes from the circuit and not the district.

[00:04:24] Speaker 01:
And we have held evidence that where you have a mixed parent but a government-only affiliate, the affiliate is not within the jurisdiction given the court under the statute.

[00:04:38] Speaker 01:
Is that not correct?

[00:04:41] Speaker 02:
No.

[00:04:42] Speaker 02:
My understanding is that if the law is, the law based on arguments that this court has put out, if you have a subordinate

[00:04:53] Speaker 02:
and to a mixed parent, then under several theories, the mixed subordinates are also covered by the federal statute and the- But this is a government-only subordinate here, right?

[00:05:11] Speaker 01:
I'm so sorry?

[00:05:12] Speaker 01:
This is a government-only subordinate here, right?

[00:05:15] Speaker 02:
Yeah, for Local 12, it's only a government subordinate, but once you look at

[00:05:23] Speaker 02:
If there are regulations that say, look, we're changing our strategy, we're changing our theory, let me just break down into two parts.

[00:05:34] Speaker 02:
One, in arguing before the district court, I tried to stick strictly with what this court had to say about this issue and the cases that were relied on by this court in addressing those particular issues.

[00:05:48] Speaker 02:
And so it's a two part approach.

[00:05:52] Speaker 02:
So I'm just going to cite to this case because I cannot expect this court really at the trial level to get any other interpretation other than what this particular court has to say.

[00:06:03] Speaker 02:
But at the same time, the other jurisdictions have come to the same conclusion.

[00:06:10] Speaker 02:
If you have a mixed parent or a mixed intermediary, they're covered.

[00:06:13] Speaker 02:
And I did cite that in talking about my issues with the Daniel Judy case, where you do have other mixed that are involved in the process.

[00:06:27] Speaker 02:
And so they would be covered by virtue of the fact that their parent is covered by this standard.

[00:06:34] Speaker 02:
So, and at the same time, you look at the government, the government tried to say, well, the Labor Department has changed, the Labor Department has implemented regulations that support positions, but they've been sending them no, they've adopted the rationale for another jurisdiction saying, look, what we're trying to do is to make sure that these

[00:07:03] Speaker 02:
subordinates are included.

[00:07:06] Speaker 02:
Um, a union member in a different area be covered by this particular statute and protected by it.

[00:07:14] Speaker 04:
And so so ask you a question, Mr. Brookings.

[00:07:18] Speaker 04:
Um, with respect to your claims against the council officials, do you have an intention to run again for election?

[00:07:29] Speaker 04:
Are you, are you interested in again running for an election?

[00:07:32] Speaker 04:
Because of course the election that you originally brought the suit for, you know, is no longer one on which we could grant relief.

[00:07:39] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry?

[00:07:43] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:07:43] Speaker 02:
I've been in the union 20 years and I'm either running for an office or I'm backing somebody who's running.

[00:07:50] Speaker 02:
They understand I have a vote.

[00:07:51] Speaker 02:
So when you take away my voting rights,

[00:07:53] Speaker 02:
I've been on this council for at least 20 years.

[00:07:57] Speaker 02:
I've rotated on.

[00:07:58] Speaker 02:
There are three different councils.

[00:08:01] Speaker 02:
I run for office.

[00:08:01] Speaker 05:
I understand your argument that if you were precluded unlawfully from voting in the vote that's already taken place, that result is invalid, all right?

[00:08:19] Speaker 05:
Because your argument is you were entitled to vote

[00:08:22] Speaker 05:
and you would deny the right to vote.

[00:08:26] Speaker 05:
But I'm back to where Judge Santel asked you his question.

[00:08:32] Speaker 05:
Now we have this case, all right, that the district court relied on, Wild Burger, and that was decided in 1996.

[00:08:47] Speaker 05:
And the district court looked at that and it determined

[00:08:52] Speaker 05:
in light of that, that here's what it had to conclude.

[00:09:00] Speaker 05:
And then it cited one of its own opinions because there was a question left open in Wildberg.

[00:09:07] Speaker 05:
So you have to persuade us that the district court erred as a matter of law, at least as to the statute under which you were seeking relief.

[00:09:24] Speaker 05:
And I haven't heard you do that yet.

[00:09:28] Speaker 02:
I think there are several items.

[00:09:36] Speaker 05:
First of all, let me just point you directly to what I'm concerned about, where the district court says that a government-only local or council is not, quote,

[00:09:51] Speaker 05:
engaged in an industry affecting commerce, close quote, and therefore is not a covered, quote, labor organization, close quote.

[00:10:09] Speaker 05:
Isn't that correct?

[00:10:11] Speaker 05:
And he cites this from other circuits.

[00:10:16] Speaker 02:
Uh, I think, I think this is where, um, you have the case of child versus Bremerton, which is the same.

[00:10:27] Speaker 02:
Um, this is where a, the labor department filed action against a intermediary council.

[00:10:34] Speaker 02:
Um, it's another, I think it's Texas.

[00:10:42] Speaker 02:
Texas.

[00:10:44] Speaker 02:
The circuit court for Texas.

[00:10:47] Speaker 02:
In fact, I should cite it on my brief.

[00:10:50] Speaker 05:
That's a state court, correct?

[00:10:53] Speaker 02:
No, it's a federal court.

[00:10:54] Speaker 02:
It's a district court.

[00:10:55] Speaker 02:
Let me look at it.

[00:10:56] Speaker 06:
So what circuit?

[00:11:04] Speaker 02:
Just one second.

[00:11:09] Speaker 02:
Charles V. Bremerton.

[00:11:12] Speaker 02:
Yeah.

[00:11:17] Speaker 02:
And I cited on my brief for gamble on page three and I cited on page.

[00:11:33] Speaker 05:
What circuit Ms.

[00:11:34] Speaker 05:
Brookins?

[00:11:35] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry.

[00:11:37] Speaker 05:
What circuit court of appeals?

[00:11:41] Speaker 02:
I don't, I didn't put that, oh, I didn't put that on my, let me see.

[00:11:50] Speaker 02:
Bremerton is cited.

[00:11:58] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry, Ninth Circuit.

[00:12:00] Speaker 02:
Ninth Circuit.

[00:12:02] Speaker 02:
The Ninth Circuit is on page three of my brief for Judy.

[00:12:11] Speaker 02:
And so this case, this is Rudy, Ninth Circuit.

[00:12:16] Speaker 05:
So this is where the Labor Department- We're not bound by the Ninth Circuit, as you know.

[00:12:24] Speaker 02:
No, that's why, I'm sorry.

[00:12:26] Speaker 02:
Go ahead.

[00:12:27] Speaker 05:
What the district court did was look at the plain text of the statute, looked at our opinion in Wild Burger, looked at what some other circuits had held and determined that

[00:12:42] Speaker 05:
the nature of the entity on which you were focusing was not covered.

[00:12:55] Speaker 05:
Period.

[00:12:58] Speaker 05:
And the language I read

[00:13:02] Speaker 05:
that under this statutory scheme, government-only local or council is not, quote, engaged in an industry-affecting commerce, close quote, and therefore is not a labor organization under the statute on which you're relying?

[00:13:20] Speaker 02:
Well, I think that's why the Labor Department and I've cited their regulations.

[00:13:28] Speaker 05:
Well, the regulations can't

[00:13:31] Speaker 05:
go contrary to the plain text of the statute?

[00:13:35] Speaker 02:
Well, Your Honor, the Labor Department has interpreted their regulations consistent with the particular language.

[00:13:45] Speaker 02:
The language of the statute we're talking about is Section 412, and it's a broad statute.

[00:13:54] Speaker 02:
and the regulations that the Labor Department had promulgated over the last 20 years or whatever it is, they said, no, we're going to adopt the interpretation for the Bremerton case because it better fits with what we're trying to accommodate.

[00:14:14] Speaker 02:
I'm not into a debate with the Department of Labor versus the Department, but the issue is that they're affecting my particular voting rights

[00:14:22] Speaker 02:
And so I'm taking action to protect my voting rights.

[00:14:26] Speaker 02:
And so to give me the right to vote the day before the national convention is not helpful.

[00:14:33] Speaker 02:
I may want to run, I may want to support, but I'm able to run.

[00:14:35] Speaker 02:
So that's infringes on my rights.

[00:14:37] Speaker 02:
At the same time that I was elected to the council one, so Ms.

[00:14:42] Speaker 02:
Gamble was elected to council one.

[00:14:44] Speaker 02:
She's a delegate.

[00:14:46] Speaker 02:
I'm on the council for a couple of years.

[00:14:47] Speaker 02:
I decided I want to run for president.

[00:14:49] Speaker 05:
So the district court notes that you do cite a fact sheet

[00:14:55] Speaker 05:
posted on the Department of Labor website about whether a local union or a parent body represents any private sector employees, that your complaint is covered by the lander.

[00:15:17] Speaker 05:
And the district court says, well, whatever authority value this document has, it is fully consistent

[00:15:25] Speaker 05:
with the district court's interpretation of that statute.

[00:15:32] Speaker 05:
And that's explained by the fact sheet that if Brookings claims were that a mixed union, so does the National AFGE violated certain rights, then Lambda might apply.

[00:15:48] Speaker 05:
But this case involves the conduct of local 12, not a mixed parent union.

[00:15:55] Speaker 05:
So I understood the court to look at what the Labor Department had decided and determined that the district court's conclusion was consistent with that, not contrary to it.

[00:16:10] Speaker 02:
Well, I think the bottom line is, what actually did the Labor Department decide to do?

[00:16:23] Speaker 02:
And being a union member, we have union people who are very competent in the unions who are who do these kind of these cases all the time.

[00:16:29] Speaker 02:
So the issue is the Labor Department has taken the position to support and enhance its position in the child versus Remington case.

[00:16:37] Speaker 02:
They've developed regulations to support that.

[00:16:40] Speaker 02:
The government.

[00:16:43] Speaker 02:
Probably, I mean, somebody in the Labor Department or in the union in one of our union meetings could tell us what authority is for the Department of Labor decide to expand and support a union member in this regard, so that it's not tying people up on these kinds of issues.

[00:17:02] Speaker 02:
So as you pointed out, I tried to be very careful and just cite to this court the authority that it has

[00:17:09] Speaker 02:
and the site to the regulations that I've identified.

[00:17:12] Speaker 02:
Now, in terms of the regulations that the Department of Labor put out regulations, they rescinded them, and then they re-implemented them again to support the issues to support my position.

[00:17:26] Speaker 02:
So the Labor Department, the Office of Labor Management Standards has adopted my position.

[00:17:35] Speaker 06:
All right.

[00:17:36] Speaker 02:
It's my first time in the station from this point.

[00:17:39] Speaker 05:
I'm sorry, Your Honor.

[00:17:41] Speaker 05:
Why don't we hear from counsel for appellees and from the federal appellees and then we'll give you some time to respond.

[00:17:52] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:17:55] Speaker 05:
So Mr. Harris.

[00:17:58] Speaker 07:
May it please the court, Chad Harris for Appellees, Loronda Gamble, the American Federation of Government Employees Local 12.

[00:18:04] Speaker 07:
in case number 215049 and Dino, Drudy, Frank Silverstein and Gina Walton in case number 21-7020.

[00:18:12] Speaker 07:
Just to begin, just to address Mr. Brookings points or some of his points he raised and I'll address more further.

[00:18:20] Speaker 07:
I want to be clear that this court, the precedent is clear by Wildberger and also Diven, which was issued prior to Wildberger in 1994, that a government-only union, whether it's federal, state, or municipal, is not covered under the LMRDA.

[00:18:40] Speaker 07:
And in 1994, that was the case regarding WMATA and Metro employees

[00:18:47] Speaker 07:
and that it is clear that the Department of Labor's regulations at the time that this complaint was filed and today are consistent with the plain text of the statute, which specifically excludes wholly government-only unions from coverage under the LMRDA.

[00:19:09] Speaker 04:
If I can ask you, I mean, I think

[00:19:13] Speaker 04:
That seems absolutely clear with respect to something like Local 12.

[00:19:18] Speaker 04:
But what about the council, which is an intermediary organization, right?

[00:19:24] Speaker 04:
So the statute says, a labor organization shall be deemed to be engaged in an industry affecting commerce if it is a conference, general committee, joint or system board or joint council subordinate to a national or international labor organization.

[00:19:38] Speaker 04:
Sorry, that's not the one I'm saying.

[00:19:40] Speaker 04:
The one.

[00:19:44] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry, I'm losing my place, but the statute discusses intermediary organizations, right?

[00:19:51] Speaker 04:
And so why isn't the council here an intermediary organization?

[00:19:57] Speaker 07:
Even if the council is an intermediate organization, it is still a wholly and solely government only union.

[00:20:07] Speaker 07:
There are no private sector employees in that.

[00:20:09] Speaker 07:
And there's no case that I'm aware of that has held that except potentially the Ninth Circuit case, the Child versus Burmington case.

[00:20:21] Speaker 07:
And that case,

[00:20:23] Speaker 07:
is frankly, in the union's opinion, is wrongly decided.

[00:20:28] Speaker 07:
And I will note that this court itself has questioned the reasoning in the Chao versus Burmington case in the Alabama Education Association versus Chao, where this court acknowledged that most likely the education associations had a better reading of the statute than the Department of Labor and the

[00:20:53] Speaker 07:
at the end at the time.

[00:20:55] Speaker 07:
And so, and that the regulation I will add to that, you know, the regulation that Mr Brookings is referencing that regulation was rescinded.

[00:21:06] Speaker 07:
It's no longer in effect.

[00:21:08] Speaker 07:
And it hasn't been it was rescinded in 2010 and it hasn't been in effect since then.

[00:21:14] Speaker 07:
And the current regulation is

[00:21:18] Speaker 07:
The one that has been in effect for 40 years prior to the one issued in 2002, which that intermediate organizations intermediate labor organizations are not covered under the LM RDA and Mr. Department of Labor has changed its position on that view.

[00:21:34] Speaker 04:
Across different administration.

[00:21:36] Speaker 07:
It's changed its position once and currently before this court, it's the position is that an intermediate organization is not covered under the LM RDA.

[00:21:45] Speaker 07:
I will say too that this regulation is not under review before this court in terms of whether that proposed regulation is applicable.

[00:21:54] Speaker 07:
But I will also add that Mr. Brookings raised these arguments.

[00:21:58] Speaker 07:
He never raised the rescinded regulation from 2002 before the district court.

[00:22:05] Speaker 07:
And he never raised the proposed regulation from from 2019 until his reply brief before this court.

[00:22:13] Speaker 07:
So we would assert that those issues have not been preserved for review by this court, and this court should not give any weight to them.

[00:22:21] Speaker 01:
In short, though, your position would be that the determining factor is not whether it is an intermediate level, but whether it is all government.

[00:22:29] Speaker 01:
That is correct.

[00:22:30] Speaker 01:
Here is all government, right?

[00:22:31] Speaker 07:
That is correct, sir.

[00:22:32] Speaker 07:
They are only government, your honor, they are only government unions and only government employees.

[00:22:39] Speaker 07:
And the statute is clear at 29 USC 42E that it defines employer and it specifically excludes US government or any state or political subdivision thereof.

[00:22:53] Speaker 07:
And it defines employees

[00:22:55] Speaker 07:
at 29 USC 40402F as any individual employed by an employer and so it is the statute is clear that it doesn't apply and there is there's no allegation or no dispute that council one or local 12 are not solely government employees it's clear from the record that they are

[00:23:22] Speaker 04:
And has Mr Harris has this court ever held clearly that an intermediate organization that is wholly that it wholly involves government employees is is not covered by the LMRDA.

[00:23:40] Speaker 07:
I'm not sure that this court has held that, or I have a specific case that an intermediate organization has not covered, but I would add before my time concludes that this court has held that even if it was a mixed union,

[00:23:56] Speaker 07:
It has affirmed the district court's decision that a mixed union, that is a federal sector union, is not covered in the LMRDA because of the preemptive effect of the Civil Service Reform Act.

[00:24:09] Speaker 07:
And so that has been, and the court most recently, affirmed that in the Hudson v. AFGE case from

[00:24:18] Speaker 07:
from 2019 where it held that it is that the preemption of, I'm sorry, the site is 2020 Westlaw 3035039 at five, that even though AFGE and in that case, AFG was sued,

[00:24:38] Speaker 07:
the national, and even though it is a mixed union it said that because of the preemptive effect of the CSRA, it is not covered by the LM RDA and so the unions appellees would also argue that because of the sui generous nature of federal sector unions.

[00:24:55] Speaker 07:
that they are not covered, whether it's the national level, the intermediate level, or the local level, because of the preemptive effect of the CSRA.

[00:25:04] Speaker 07:
And this court and the Supreme Court has repeatedly held, most recently in Trump versus AFGE, that the CRS preempts employees' claims and union claims.

[00:25:19] Speaker 01:
But you don't need the preemption argument if we are satisfied that

[00:25:25] Speaker 01:
the all government nature of the intermediate precluded coverage, right?

[00:25:31] Speaker 07:
That is correct, Judge Santel.

[00:25:33] Speaker 07:
That is correct.

[00:25:33] Speaker 07:
And I see that my time has expired, but I'm happy to address any other questions that the court may have for me.

[00:25:41] Speaker 05:
Thank you.

[00:25:46] Speaker 05:
So the Assistant U.S.

[00:25:49] Speaker 05:
Attorney.

[00:25:53] Speaker 00:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:25:54] Speaker 00:
and may please the court.

[00:25:55] Speaker 00:
My name is Paul Serino.

[00:25:56] Speaker 00:
I represent the federal appellees in case number 21-5049.

[00:26:01] Speaker 00:
The remaining claim against the federal appellees on appeal is Mr. Brookens argument that he's entitled to relief under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act.

[00:26:13] Speaker 00:
The district court correctly concluded that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over this claim.

[00:26:19] Speaker 00:
This is because Congress has not expressly waived the government's sovereign immunity with respect to claims under the statute.

[00:26:28] Speaker 00:
The Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act authorizes suits against labor organizations and not the employer, which is what the Department of Labor is here, so there's no basis for subject matter jurisdiction.

[00:26:43] Speaker 00:
Your honor, the only other point is that Mr. Brookings opening brief did not even address that the United States was subject to suit under the Labor Management Statute, nor has Mr. Brookings responded to any of the federal appellee's arguments on sovereign immunity issue.

[00:27:00] Speaker 00:
And so that point should be deemed to have been abandoned or otherwise forfeited.

[00:27:06] Speaker 00:
Mr. Brookings' reply states that his primary argument for jurisdiction is based on

[00:27:12] Speaker 00:
an interpretation of some proposed regulations, but he waived that argument by not raising it before the district court, as he admits in the reply brief.

[00:27:22] Speaker 00:
The bottom line, your honors, is that Mr. Brookings has not even argued, even during his presentation this morning, that the federal government is subject to suit under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act.

[00:27:35] Speaker 00:
So there's no reason to disturb the conclusion

[00:27:38] Speaker 00:
that the district court lacked subject matter of jurisdiction over Mr. Brookings' claims against the federal appellees.

[00:27:46] Speaker 00:
And so the district court's judgment should be affirmed.

[00:27:51] Speaker 00:
And if the court has questions, if the court has no further questions, we'll rely on the arguments in our brief and ask that the court affirm the district court's judgment.

[00:28:03] Speaker 05:
Thank you.

[00:28:04] Speaker 05:
All right.

[00:28:06] Speaker 05:
Mr. Brookins, do you want to take a few minutes to respond?

[00:28:17] Speaker 06:
Hi, Mr. Brookins, we cannot hear you.

[00:28:27] Speaker 06:
Are you on mute?

[00:28:30] Speaker 02:
OK.

[00:28:31] Speaker 02:
Can you hear me now?

[00:28:33] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:28:35] Speaker 02:
Okay, the federal government is probably the main culprit in this whole operation.

[00:28:41] Speaker 05:
The federal government has no That's not the issue before us is the question is jurisdiction over your complaint.

[00:28:58] Speaker 02:
Yes, the the the the statute provides

[00:29:04] Speaker 02:
Any person who has a right to vote can raise the issue in federal court.

[00:29:10] Speaker 02:
And for me, the issue is my ability to vote.

[00:29:13] Speaker 02:
Now the problem with the federal authorities is that they are assisting the union

[00:29:19] Speaker 02:
improperly by keeping me from attending union meetings.

[00:29:23] Speaker 02:
I can't tend to go into the building.

[00:29:24] Speaker 02:
I can't go to meetings and these sort of things.

[00:29:27] Speaker 02:
My colleagues who got cases at the Court of Appeals, Mr. Bastani and Ms.

[00:29:34] Speaker 02:
Nguyen, we can talk about these things and the federal authority because of the power of the security officer, which has no interest in our being able to talk and discuss and to look at these issues is

[00:29:49] Speaker 02:
is preventing me from coming into the building to talk to other people and to vote in regular meetings.

[00:29:56] Speaker 02:
In-person voting meetings, unfortunately for COVID, I would be able to go to the meetings.

[00:30:00] Speaker 02:
They can vote things just like the union gave me the opportunity to vote.

[00:30:04] Speaker 02:
In 2018, I was certified to vote.

[00:30:08] Speaker 02:
And so I could come into the building and confer with people.

[00:30:11] Speaker 02:
And although this hearing has excluded other issues, but that's the main thing that's taking place.

[00:30:18] Speaker 02:
But for the fact that the federal authorities are supporting the union, then I would be able to participate.

[00:30:28] Speaker 02:
I'd be able to run the last election is over.

[00:30:31] Speaker 02:
I would be able to vote on the contract.

[00:30:32] Speaker 02:
I'd be able to talk to my colleagues about what our positions are.

[00:30:35] Speaker 02:
And that's all has been done.

[00:30:37] Speaker 02:
And this court, I'm very careful.

[00:30:43] Speaker 02:
to this court, the authorities that this court has cited.

[00:30:46] Speaker 02:
And of course, I don't think you would want to exclude the rule out the fact that the Labor Department took the same position against a similar counsel somewhere else because they have done employees right.

[00:31:00] Speaker 02:
And so, and I did bring to attention

[00:31:04] Speaker 02:
attorney from the Department of Labor.

[00:31:07] Speaker 02:
What's the status of the regulations that the Labor Department has actually obviously flipped over and adopted.

[00:31:13] Speaker 02:
The council said for 40 years, they interpreted this way.

[00:31:15] Speaker 02:
No, they've now moved to the Bremerton view of intermediate union and local unions, uh, uh, and effected as being covered by this statute.

[00:31:26] Speaker 02:
And, um, so, uh, there's nowhere around it.

[00:31:33] Speaker 05:
All right, so I think we have your argument.

[00:31:35] Speaker 05:
Is there anything else?

[00:31:39] Speaker 02:
No, Your Honor.

[00:31:40] Speaker 05:
Thank you very much.

[00:31:41] Speaker 05:
We will take the two cases under advisement.