Instead of reconciling these contradictions, United’s (Frank Hester)  depends on selective interpretation of the evidence and the omission of material facts that would undermine its position. This approach effectively attempts to validate a predetermined outcome rather than demonstrate that the outcome was reached through a fair and contract-compliant process.

The Collective Bargaining Agreement does not permit discipline based on incomplete investigations, unverified evidence, or one-sided consideration of the facts. Yet that is precisely what occurred here. United's offered does not remedy these deficiencies—it underscores them. By advancing arguments that cannot be reconciled with the objective record, United’s (Frank Hester) position highlights the extent to which the process deviated from the standards of fairness and due process required under the agreement.

United’s counsel, David Hartmenn advanced arguments in this matter that are not supported by the evidentiary record and, in several respects, are directly contradicted by objective evidence. While framed as advocacy, these assertions materially mischaracterize key facts and contributed to a misleading presentation of the case.

While counsel is expected to advocate vigorously on behalf of a client, that advocacy cannot substitute for the absence of a valid factual and contractual basis for the action taken. Where the defense is built upon strained interpretations of the record and the disregard of critical evidence, it reinforces the conclusion that the termination of FA Blockhus was not the result of a fair or lawful process, but rather an outcome in search of justification.

Most notably, United’s counsel relied on the claim that FA Blockhus “admitted” to the alleged misconduct. However, the record contains no such admission. To the contrary, FA Blockhus consistently denied the allegations stating that they were "RIDICULES "  and objective evidence—including phone records and the absence of any connection to the alleged text messages—directly contradicts that assertion. Presenting this as an admission is not supported by the underlying facts and reflects a material mischaracterization of the evidence.

Additionally, United’s counsel David Hartmenn, defended the integrity of the investigation despite clear evidence that it was incomplete. The investigator never interviewed FA Blockhus, key witness testimony was disregarded, and exculpatory evidence was omitted. Representing such a process as thorough or fair is inconsistent with the documented record.

Further, United’s counsel advanced arguments that ignored critical contradictions within the complainant’s own statements, including admissions that she did not feel threatened and that her primary concern was "protecting her employment." These omissions are significant, as they go directly to the credibility and weight of the allegations.

Rather than addressing these issues, United and their counsel relied on selective interpretations of the evidence and arguments that cannot be reconciled with the full factual record. This approach resulted in a presentation that was incomplete and materially misleading.