Appeal of New England Police Benevolent Association, Inc.

NOTICE: This speech-to-text record was generated from automated speech recognition, is likely to contain errors or inaccuracies, and should be verified against the recording provided by the Supreme Court at https://www.courts.nh.gov/our-courts/supreme-court/oral-argument/live-stream/2018.

Honor, justice Supreme Court Morning, Uh, just for the, uh, for those in the audience. We're going to, uh, hear arguments on the first three cases. Then we'll take a recess and then, uh, uh, come back and hear the, the next, uh, two. Alright. This is Case 2017 0 4 7 2. Appeal of New England Police Benevolent Association Inc. And the appeal of State Employees Association of New Hampshire, Inc. SEIU, local 1984. Good morning. May it please the court, Peter Peroni, for the, uh, new England Police Benevolent Association. Um, I will, uh, if I can reserve, uh, three minutes for rebuttal. Uh, this case arises out of, uh, um, by the way, welcome, your Honor. Thank you. Yeah. Uh, this case arises out of a, uh, uh, the most recent negotiations between the state employees and the state of New Hampshire for a success of collective bargaining agreement, uh, for the, uh, the agreements that expired in June of, uh, uh, 2017. And the facts are pretty simple. The parties began bargaining in, uh, December of 2016. They had approximately 14 sessions, uh, uh, together, meaning that the, the five unions that represent, uh, the various bargaining units in the state of New Hampshire bargained together until, uh, March of 2017. Counsel, can I just add Sure. I don't mean to interrupt. You're giving the history, but I just want, one question that came to mind is we've, obviously, it's been public information that there's been a, an agreement reached between the state and the, uh, at least at at least some of the unions. And so I guess my question is, is this case moot? Yeah, it's interesting, judge. Uh, uh, I thought about that, uh, uh, before we came and, uh, meant to grab a case. And, uh, then there I was in the lobby this morning with my cell phone. I think it's a, I think it's a, uh, uh, very, uh, classic, uh, uh, capable of repetition yet evading review type of case it we're going back. Well, that's not always a bad thing for us. No, I understand that. I understand that, your Honor. Uh, we're going back in the fall. I mean, we're gonna be back in, in, uh, uh, for, for the 2019, or I guess it'll be 2020. Well, But you know, what is it, I mean, when you say, I, I'm just curious is, is this really sort of a classic, in other words, obviously the, the parties, uh, reached agreement now and that, you know, in the, sort of, in the, the middle of this appeal. But is that, you know, is that something that we sort of can count on typically being the case, uh, um, as opposed to, you know, something dragging out for a sufficient period of time that the appeal could be heard? Well, I, we certainly endeavor to, to, uh, reach agreement sooner rather than later. So I hope that it's the case that, uh, it is a circumstance that would evade review. I'll be honest with you, judge, but, okay. Um, can I say in the future, there wouldn't be some case where we, we'd go, uh, years, uh, and that, and there'd be no, no agreement. That that's definitely true. The, the, the thing about this is, uh, the consequence I think of this case is one consequence is that the time when, uh, one of the participants looks to move forward, uh, in the process, in other words, to get to mediation and fact finding might be moved up. Um, that might be a consequence of this. Um, and, and if you look at 12, that's, that's a, uh, that can be a unilateral, right? When you get closer to the budget submission date, Is it, uh, correct that this is the first time the state has taken this position? It is, and, and I haven't been personally involved in, uh, going back, uh, but as I understand it, it's the first time that the state has taken the position that everybody has to go or not. Uh, Is there any dispute that the various units share common terms that are in dispute at this point? Or at the point that this issue arose? They all work for the state. Um, the interesting thing about this, and, and at least the, the union, I represent the, the new Eng England, and, and we fought, you know, uh, the members of these unions fought to get their own sep separate individual representation because they have unique interests. In our case, they're all, uh, sworn law enforcement officers. But as To her question, don't, weren't there common interests that were still in play when the, um, the impasse was declared? Yeah, we're, so one thing is that employees, uh, one, uh, very common, uh, term and condition of employment we negotiate over is wages. Wages are, were still in play. Um, and I say, okay, wages are in play that we're still negotiating about wages. Some unions said that you're never gonna meet, you're never gonna get to where we need to be in this process. Our union did not take that position. We took the position. And, and it's because I think one thing that's has to be made clear here, the state isn't obligated to pay each and to come to an agreement that is equal regarding wages for each group. That isn't the, that, that, that's not the mandate. Uh, and it's not certainly where the parties have interpreted section nine. So, and as a matter of fact, in the agreements that, uh, uh, Mr. Chief Justice you mentioned there, there are varying on wages on, on other, on other pieces of the contract that are different that you might still call cost items, right? So we say, well, the most common thing about these negotiations, it's all coming from one pot of money, so why don't you have to be there? But, uh, so It would be, uh, not unusual for wages to be decided differently for each union. 3% here, 2% there, or, or is it a, well, I'm not gonna say that across the Board Resolution. I'm not gonna say that's not unusual, but it, it is a little bit unusual, but that is not in this particular round. Uh, the, uh, there are a different wage, the ultimate result here, and we're not exactly moot yet. I would say, uh, some of, some agreements have been ratified, some haven't. Um, in the process, what Can I, can I just make sure that I'm understanding, let, let's suppose that, that, for example, wages were not in issue. Let, let, let's suppose that all of the unions, for example, came to an agreement with the state saying this is what the wages are gonna be. Yep. And maybe they, maybe they did on health, health benefits and, you know, a bunch of other things, they all kind of came to agreement. But the union that you represent, um, unlike the state employees, generally the union that you represent didn't come to an agreement on, I don't know, some other things that you thought were important, like, you know, uniform reimbursement or how much their overtime schedule, uh, standby, do whatever. Yes. You Right. Am I understanding correctly that if, if you, if your union as to those issues has not come to an agreement with the state, you don't have an agreement on anything. In other words, the, the state couldn't say, you know, well, you can't, you, we can't bargain anymore over, over wages. In other words, you, you, you could say, look, we don't have an agreement. And if, you know, if you want us, for example, to change, uh, the uniform allowance, alright, we'll talk about that. But now we're gonna, we, you know, we want to talk about wages again. That's correct. I mean, you'll be able to do that, right? That's correct. It's a package. Package, Okay. A package. It's exactly. So, and, And very often it may be the case that, you know, you're looking for something, you're looking for a four day work week, for instance. Okay. And you might say, I wanna work 4 10, 4 10 day, four 10 hour days. Right? I might say, we'll, forego a raise, right. In order to get that benefit. Right. That, that in my mind though, is still necessarily, if you look at the definition of, of cost item under 2 73 A, there's a, there's the appropriation that the legislature makes, uh, you know, includes accounting for that benefit. So, so is this A challenge to the whole union committee format? It it's not, your Honor. Uh, it's not, your Honor. The, the issue with the way the principal issue with the way this has been interpreted is, and I say that judge only because, uh, I know full well I can't make that challenge here, but, uh, the, the issue with the decision that's been made with the PLRB is there is no way that the unions can comply with this. I have no mechanism by which five, uh, independent unions can come to some agreement. And we've basically, it's just an abdication, in my opinion, by the board to just say, well, go have at it. You guys don't agree. We've provided you no mechanism for you to agree. There's nothing, you know, if you look at other statutes, uh, um, well, Why wouldn't, why wouldn't the mediation provisions and the other dispute resolution provisions drive the train at that point? Do you follow me? Yeah. Well, why, why, why isn't that an efficient use of everybody's time? Well, I might not, I might have one issue, judge, right? I might have one issue and be done. Right. And, uh, my members and I have a duty to my members. I don't have a duty to God bless 'em, the SEA members, I don't have. I we have, and it's a statutory duty, it's a duty of fair representation. So I have a legal duty, or my, our clients have a legal duty to their membership. If their membership says, all I want is, and this is a complete hypothetical, all I want is a, all I want is four in 10. I just wanna work and have a, and have a rotating three. That's the only issue. Everything else in the contract, we agree with the state on it's all set, okay? And the state says, well, no, everybody goes to, by the way, for the first time, everybody goes to this, uh, uh, everybody goes through this process. Stupid. Yeah. This, and by the way, it's, the cost is not inconsequential. It's, it's a, it's a serious cost, especially in material costs, especially for, you know, whatever, there is 400 people in America. But why would you have to go through it? Why wouldn't you just let the, uh, unions that created the impasse carry the burden there? And that might be a disincentive for them to do that. Well, I certainly have to, I have to have an agreement in place, uh, before I let the train leave the station, because I very well might have the train, leave the station and have, uh, now I have four, uh, unions with agreements, and our members are looking at us, and the state is saying, well, you should have gone to mediation. No, But if you, but in your hypothetical, if you're saying you are agree, you know, you're agreeing, you're in agreement with everything, you're in agreement that there'd be no change except for the four 10. I mean, isn't it, you know, it, it would strike me that it is pretty unlikely. Well, typically that the, that the, that the union and the, and the state are gonna come to an agreement in which wages are lower. Yeah. I mean, maybe that's possible. I think probably relatively unlikely. Well, I don't, I don't necessarily agree with the, the, the premise that it's extremely unlikely. Judge, I'm, I'm using a simple hypothetical. It may be three or four issues. And, uh, uh, although I might live my personal life, uh, in the realm of what's likely an extremely unlikely, uh, when I have a group of, uh, three, 400 law enforcement officers who are, uh, relying on us, uh, for their benefits and their livelihood going forward, me relying on the, uh, on the supposition that the state, well, they're probably not gonna go, they're probably not gonna change. They're probably not gonna say, well, we're gonna fund, uh, we're gonna, we're gonna move those funds that we had allocated for the benefits, uh, that we, we were gonna give to you, but wouldn't agree with you on, um, we're now gonna use them for something else. I can't do that. The Position is you can't participate in the alternative dispute resolution process in a nominal fashion or just to protect your Right. I, I, and, and we shouldn't have to the, it if, if the court had some, if there was some way to make the determination as part of this that we could act collectively instead of just saying, figure it out, which is we, as I've argued in the brief, is, uh, I think absurd. So you don't know how to coordinate with each other? No guidelines. How would we, I mean, I, I, But, but I mean, if we isn't, if we accept that proposition, we're really saying that the provision of the, of Section nine really is, is invalid. I mean, because that, I mean, what if you, you know, what if you, to go back to your earlier example, suppose right at the beginning, you know, from the basis of some discussions you've had with the state, that they're not gonna agree to a four 10, you know, that. But that's, you know, that's, uh, yeah. That's sort of, you know, something that your membership says. We gotta have. Yeah. So you want to go, to me, you wanna go to, uh, uh, dispute resolution immediately. Yeah. There's no se there's no sense in having these meetings where we're gonna waste money and time. Let's go Right to, um, you would say that you, that the, that you should be able to do that notwithstanding the statute. Well, no. Well, I think I'm smarter than the legislature all the time, but that doesn't mean I am, or that, uh, it, when faced with a, with with a, a, a statutory provision that says, listen, you have to, at this stage, do this as a committee. There's no agreement there. I have to be there as a committee. The question is, now do I have to go and move on to a mediation and, uh, uh, uh, fact finding when there is no statutory provision that says that, it simply does not say that. So while, while You're arresting and waiting for your three minutes, I'd like you to think about the answer to this question, whether this is a matter exclusively within the province of the legislature, because they created the problem that you articulate. So just think about that, your Honor. I do have one question. Now, what's your response to the state's assertion that this is the first time they've taken this approach? Because previously you had an agreement to negotiate on in an alternative format. Well, is that true? Negotiate? I, I don't know that that is, is what do you mean by alternative format, your honor? Well, the, the referring to footnote six in the state's brief, page 16. Okay. Are you familiar with that assertion that pre this may be the first time the state's taken this position because previously the parties agreed to negotiate in an al in an alternative format. Well, What the flip side of that coin judge was that, and what was, uh, I remember the argument being at the board was that the, uh, uh, this was in a, in essence, a negoti, a negotiating position that the state had chosen. I mean, they, and they, I think they'd still say this today. We, we, we don't know that you have to do this, but we want to be able to decide when you do Mm-Hmm. Which, you know, if, if everybody agrees that we're gonna use a, you know, go to interest arbitration right away next fall, then everybody agrees to that. And I think Section 12 allows that. Sure. Um, but the fact the, you know, part of the problem here is that the upshot of this, and I'm going way over my time, but the, the, the upshot of this is that it's, the state sort of sits and says, well, in this negotiation, we think it's, it's good for us to split you up in this next one. We want to keep you all together and, and that, you know, if we agree to that, so be it. If we don't, then, uh, um, I think that the, the statutory language has to control. So thank you, counsel. Thank you. Good morning. May it please the court.

My name is Jill Perlow and I'm here on behalf of the State of New Hampshire. I'm happy to take questions at any time. The dispute before the court involves the manner in which the state as a public employer and the exclusive representatives of those employees, the SEA, the N-E-P-B-A, the teamsters and NHTA bargaining units negotiate their collective bargaining agreements. And that's set forth in 2 73 a nine, the specific format. And that is that the cost items and general terms and conditions of employment shall be negotiated with a single employee bargaining committee comprised of exclusive representatives of all interested bargaining units, or we call it can I The union committee? Yeah. Can I ask you if that is the way it works? The state does get to choose whether the units move on together or separately as counsel just sort of outlined is it's the state's option. I would say that it's all parties options and that any of the one bargaining units, if, uh, if the SEA was to declare impasse and the state was to respond to all of those units and say, well, we're happy to under that as, uh, justice Donovan noted section five, uh, paragraph five of section 12, to continue bargaining with some and go to impasse procedures with others. Any one of the other unions could also say to us, no impasse for all, you know, one means impasse for all, and you can't split us up unless we all agree. So it's not just in the state's control, whether we do break up and have that procedure or we all stay together. So anyone at this table can enforce that. Is it true that no one has taken that position prior to this bargaining session? Yes, that is true. It's important to note, though, this was only added to the statute in 97, 19 97. And that's because there had only ever been one union prior to that. Um, the first, the second union came on the, um, into the state's, um, employee representation about 19 90, 19 91. So there had been two unions for a short amount of time, and then this was added in 97. So there has been, so this is the first time there's been no agreement between the parties at the table how to proceed, whether collectively or individually. Correct. And the state, this has been the first time the state's taken this position, you must all go together and there's been pushback, or has there been a time when everyone's moved together by agreement? I don't know that I have the history of all of the prior bargaining sessions. This is the first time where we've gotten to this place where, no, we haven't agreed to split up or we haven't agreed to come to an agreement. And so it resulted in unfair labor practice. Um, And same question I had a little bit earlier is the real issue here that from the state's position, there's a commonality of issues, and that is why it makes sense to move the groups forward together. It's really important that, and these common, whether it's wages, benefits, leave, cost items, and that there's the common issues that apply across all of our state employees. Everyone's at the same table. It does not mean everyone ends up with the exact same deal, as was noted. Sometimes wage increases are different, but it's important for everyone to hear and understand why, especially if there's going to be a difference in wages, why is one union getting 2% and another one's getting three or six or nine? Um, so that there is that understanding and everyone's there and can appropriately advocate for their group if they don't know what one group is getting. Why is using the four and 10 schedule, maybe the four and 10 schedule works really well for another group. And so knowing that that would be on the table that the state might consider is important to say, well, my membership that would benefit from as well, but Isn't that satisfied by the negotiation phase? So they now all heard what everybody wants, and there's a breakdown, if you will. Certain people are still willing to talk and others realize their one important thing isn't going anywhere. So now you've got that all out on the table. What's the rationale for continuing that discussion collectively? Because at any point along the way, anyone can reach an agreement, and it's important for everyone to understand where they're willing to move on any of those particular items. But I thought the state's position was that, I can't remember, but you've got five unions, two, uh, or at impasse, and the state's position is we're not gonna reach a deal with the other three until the impasse is resolved. No, that's not the state's position. At no point during this, um, negotiation process was anyone prepared to actually enter an agreement. But what has happened in the past is that in the midst of negotiations or during an impasse, any one union could say, well, we are ready to accept and the terms that the state has put forward, and we've come to a mutual agreement and they've entered an agreement, they then, um, also negotiate as a common term or reopener clause. Didn't the state ceased to negotiate with the other three unions? We Weren't going to negotiate in two places. And So, so, so the state stopped. Yes. But as in why, Why isn't that an unfair labor practice vis-a-vis those three for failing to negotiate in good faith? Because good faith negotiation includes participating in impasse procedures, and there hadn't been an agreement reached yet. And so because of the single bargaining committee format, until an agreement is reached, everyone needs to be in the same room. And so once an agreement is reached, someone is able to leave the room. They've also negotiated in a reopener clause, Maybe they're missing something, but you've ceased to bargain, the state has ceased to bargain. Right. That is not, uh, mediation procedures are part of bargaining. If you look at the definition, it's in 2 73, A three one, it talks about the obligation to bargain and what is good faith negotiation. And it says it involves meeting at reasonable times in an effort to reach an agreement and cooperating in mediation and fact fighting required by this chapter. So those dispute resolution process procedures are just other methods of getting to the ultimate goal of the chapter. So that's sort begs the Agreement. So that's the question. If, if the mediation provision incorporates the collective process or not, I mean, it, it, they mediation's part of the process. But you're saying mediation going in as a group is part of the process and they're saying no, mediation is part of the process, but you can't force us all to be there. Yes. But the entire process is for state employees. Is that it? Any negotiations in whatever setting they occur, whether they occur at the table when we're all together, or they occur during mediation or fact finding, that's what, uh, section nine of the statute speaks to, which is that that will be done when it's common terms. It needs to all be in the same room, whichever room that is in. Right. Can I, and so can I just ask you then, would the, so could the state here instead have, instead of saying to the unions that did not, um, declare an impasse, um, you know, you have to, you have to go to mediation along with the ones that did, could the state have taken the other tact and said, no, you can't declare an because of section nine, the unions that declared an impasse can't do that because not all of them have declared an impasse. And so you have to keep bargaining with, you know, with all of, with the, with the unions that are willing to keep bargaining. You, even though you're sort of, you've said, we've reached an impasse. You can't do that until everybody's reached an impasse. There's no impasse. The state took the position that they were happy to be at either location. We could stay at the table, but everyone had to be there or we'd be at mediation and everyone had to be there. The con we proceeded to mediation because we felt that would be an unfair labor practice, because as I just read, one of the steps of good faith bargaining is participating in impasse procedures. So we didn't feel we could stand in the way of the union saying, we want to keep breaching an agreement, but in a different setting that that was more likely the unfair labor practice and stopping someone from accessing those impasse procedures would've been problematic. Right. I mean, so I, and I suppose what you, I suppose you would, what you would say is to the extent that this, that it's reflected in the statute that, I mean, the very fact, the very idea of going from bargaining to mediation to fact, I mean presumably implicit in that whole idea, is that you are more likely to be able to come to an agreement with mediation than you were with bar. If bargaining has not proved successful, you're more likely to, to come to an agreement with fact finding than if mediation has proved unsuccessful. So, I mean, I guess one of the things that you, that would sort of support your position would be mediation is a sort of, is more likely to produce an agreement. So since some, some wanna mediate, we'll, we will make, we will make everybody mediate. Correct. I mean, and that's what's contemplated by the statute is that there's all of these additional abilities. You know, the ultimate goal is to reach an agreement. That's what the purpose of this statute is. And so here are all the tools in our toolbox on how are we gonna reach an agreement with each one increasing the resources that are available to us by providing a mediator, providing a fact finder. What happens with the fact finder report, if we don't reach an agreement, there's steps all along the way that help us to, to get to that agreement. I wanted to touch on just two other things. One, as to the question of whether this is moot, I would point to, um, the violations section 2 73 A six, and the state has been charged with committing an unfair labor practice by taking this position during, uh, negotiations and proceeding to impasse. And one of the remedies should we be found that we committed an unfair labor practice is that we could be ordered payment of the cost incurred by the party, negotiating in good faith in negotiations found by the board to have not been done in good faith. And there is also, uh, the ability to order such other relief as the board may deem necessary. So even if while we're still in the ratification stage, we haven't quite reached an agreement, even if we were to have reached an agreement, I do not see this as moot because should we have committed an unfair labor practice, we could be ordered to pay costs. So I wanted to just point to that. So that's in 2 73, A six, paragraph six. The other item is to the extent the statute is not clear, the legislative history, not so much on the addition of the statute, but of an, a proposed amendment to the statute in 2014 is important to consider. And that is, um, senate Bill 3 98 in 2014, and these are in the record at, um, page one 20 through 1 26. A bill was put forward to remove this language from the statute, and specifically say that all cost items and general terms and conditions of employment were to be negotiated individually with each of the bargaining units. Uh, the N-A-P-B-A, uh, testified in favor of this specifically saying that what this statute meant was that impasse for one meant impasse for all, and that created problems for them. The SEA on the other hand, came in and testified in favor of this amendment saying, no, this creates efficiencies. We're all at the same table. We're all aware of what's happening. That bill failed. And so what Position did the state take? The state, as far as I could see in reading through the legislative history, did not take a position on that. The testimony from the Senate is provided in the record, in the pages I cited, What precipitated that legislation? I do not know. Um, Because this had never come up before, right, As far as perhaps other unions had been upset by the agreement, but never took the position that we couldn't move forward by dividing up in this way. And so they sought a legislative solution for that, but that did not pass. And so I think that's indicative of the intent of the legislature to say, no, we did intend to keep this Together. So does the, the act or inaction of the legislature in 2014 shed light on the intent of the legislature in 1997 when the this language was adopted? I think it does shed light on what is the intent of that language and how all of the parties understood that language, the import of that language, and the legislature decided not to make that change as a result. Can I just ask you a question, counsel, about just generally about bargaining over sort of com items of common items. Can, can the state take for example, in bargaining, could the state take the position, let's say with with your opponent's union look, okay, uh, they want, let's, let's, hypothetically they want a 5% pay increase. Could the state take the position? Well, you know, okay, we'll, we might be agreeable to that, but we're only gonna be agreeable to that. If, if the SEA, for example, which represents the regular state employees right now, they're looking for, uh, uh, 3% increase. We'll only give you police officers a 5% increase if the SEA will agree to reduce their, uh, wage demand to 2%, could that, could you do that or would that be some kind of an unfair labor practice? I do not see how that would be an unfair labor practice. And I would think that that could be a position the state could take because depending on the employee's current salary schedules, the demands, there's a lot of factors that go into, and as has been noted, publicly reported, we have tentative agreements right now where different unions are getting different raises as a result of their current pay status, the ability to recruit. So those are all factors that go in and it's important, it's one budget at the end of the day in terms of what does the state field has the ability to pay and what is the need in order, uh, to meet the, uh, needs of the employees. And that might follow on a history of prior bargaining agreements. So the differential this time around might come after a different differential last time around? Correct. I mean the, the history of how we got to what wages are. Did someone feel that they did not get sufficient wages to keep up with the market in a particular area? Could depend on prior wages and wage increases as well. Is it a hardship to force a unit that hasn't declared impasse to go into the mediation process? I don't see how it's a hardship. It's another phase of, um, bargaining. And again, there is nothing that says a particular union could not seek to enter an agreement. And what has happened in those cases when someone has entered an agreement is they've negotiated what's called a reopener clause. So if the state ultimately agrees to some better term, they're able to come back into bargaining. And then they also typically, instead of having their full bargaining team participating at that stage, they only send one representative to those sessions in order to stay apprised of what's happening. They still get to hear and participate and then exercise their ability to reopen. If there's no further questions, uh, I ask that the court affirm the prbs decision dismissing the SCAs and any PBAs unfair Labor practice petitions. Thank you, counsel. Thank you, Mr. Rooney. You have Thank you, judge. Uh, justice Hicks, I'll, I'll, I had a moment to contemplate your, uh, question. The issue is could the, could the legislature fix this? Yes. Have we asked the legislature to fix section nine? Yes. Um, the, the legislature that my sister, uh, the legislation that my sister mentioned, if you read through the testimony, is an attack on section nine. It, that's, that's what it is. It's an attempt to unwind section nine because as a practical matter, we don't want to be there at section nine. That's, that's the truth. And, and, um, that's, that's what it was. The problem is what you have now from the board is an interpretation of section nine with section 12 that is unworkable. It, it simply is not workable to sim to say to the unions, go figure it out. But, but you know what, when you say un work, why, what is the hardship to your union of saying, you know, look, go you, because some unions have declared impasse and have gone to mediation. You've gotta go too, to the extent that you don't have the same, you know, the same level let's say of of, of, uh, dispute with the state that another union does so fine. So why don't you, you know, why isn't it that you, you know, today we're talking about issues A, B, and C. We don't really care so much about that. So we send one representative when we're gonna talk about something that, that, you know, really does concern us, then we're gonna send our full team. That's not, what happened here is we went to fact finding, which is essentially interest arbitration. It's a, it's an adjudicatory hearing. It's essentially saying you're moving from negotiating about these issues. And it's, it's more complex. And I, I always get scared when, when we start thinking about, oh geez, what's, what's the harm? What could ha I have a group of people that I, we have a lawful obligation to represent their interests. If you look at section 12, part of it contemplates a process where the, the state comes in and does a presentation to our membership. Now, in some circumstances, the state is gonna be met with, uh, booze and hisses when they come in. In other circumstances, it'll be, it'll be great. They'll love the state's presentation. The leadership of the union is paid to attempt to do the best thing that they can and has a duty to do the best thing that they can for the membership. So that's A whole, I've heard what you've said. I'm not sure how that answers the question of how you are worse off if you make, if you do what you have to do for the membership before a mediator or a fact finder, as opposed to in discussions with, you know, in the, in the sort of meeting phase, I have a statutory right to negotiate those members by going through the process. They have to get independent representation in a separate bargaining unit, have a statutory right to negotiate and not instead to go to a fact finding process, to have essentially an adjudicatory hearing, which that decision is held, uh, uh, confidential for 10 days and then published. I have a right not to go through that process. I have a right not to have the whole thing, uh, uh, the findings of a fact finder and judgment on the process, uh, published. I have, we have all those rights, and those just go out the window and judge this is, this is the issue with the, the statute itself. It ends, you end up with this interpretation, which is not compelled by the language, with this absurd result that gives us, gives the, the five unions no mechanism to resolve it. That's, it's, it's just not workable. Thank You, counsel. Thank you. Case submitted. Okay.