During the administrative law judge hearings for this case, Gruber testified that the reason for replacing employees by inverse seniority was that it would save $40,000 because more senior employees are more expensive. However, it was unclear whether this explanation was offered to the union at the June 27 bargaining session or whether it was an afterthought used in defense during the hearings. Therefore, the NLRB remanded the case back to the administrative law judge for further factual investigation. Why is it important whether the cost-savings rationale was offered to the union on June 27