He has lost his influence." Gould informed Truesdale, Browning, and Feinstein of his conversation with Mikva after the call. The next morning (March 23), Gould repeated Usery's request to the entire Board (but not his conversation with Mikva), and recommended that the Board delay action. The Board unanimously agreed to delay its decision until Tuesday, March 28. The MBLPA was incensed that Usery had sought a delay from Gould, and negotiations collapsed (for that and other reasons). On the afternoon of Friday, March 24, Gould spoke privately with Truesdale and recommended that since negotiations seemed to be going nowhere (despite Usery's claims) the Board should meet on Sunday afternoon to vote on the 10(j) injunction request. Truesdale agreed, and Gould met privately with each of the other NLRB members to make the same request. Word of the meeting leaked to the "New York Times", which published word of the meeting on Saturday, March 25. In what the "Associated Press" termed an "extraordinary" session, the NLRB met on Sunday afternoon, March 26, to discuss Feinstein's request for a 10(j) injunction. Truesdale was highly critical of Gould's repeated contacts and interviews with the press, and the Board voted 4-to-1 to bar contacts with reporters. Gould alone dissented, and said he would not abide by the Board's decision. Truesdale, seconded by Member Browning, also said that the Board should not even reveal the outcome of the vote (whether it was 3-to-2 or 4-to-1 or 5-to-0). Gould "took strong exception to this view". When members Stephens and Cohen demanded that they be allowed to publicize their votes, Truesdale backed off his proposal. Truesdale, Gould, and Browning discussed the injunction request only briefly; Member Stephens, however, made a long speech about the case, labor policy in general, and sports labor law. In the end, after a two-hour meeting, Gould provided the critical third vote (joining Truesdale and Browning) to approve the request for injunctive relief. The day after the decision, Gould says, Truesdale came into his office and subjected him to loud verbal abuse (which devolved into a shouting match) because Truesdale was upset that Gould had spoken to the "New York Times" about the Board's decision. Gould lunched with Mikva after the incident, at which time Mikva allegedly counseled Gould to allow Truesdale and the other Board members to write opinions supporting their votes in this high-profile case.