this is an appeal from the appellate court workers compensation division the appellate court reversed the trial court and reinstated a commission award binding at the claimant was a traveling employee we respectfully submit that he was not a trailing employee he when he was injured in a traffic accident out of this way too despite fitting shot at the cordoba our planes we are correct the judgment below cannot stand generally and that some of that occurs while going to or from work does not arise out of and in the course of employment this is sometimes known as the coming and going rule one exception to the rule the one that the appellate court relied on is for the trailing employee whose work involves travel away from the employer's premises our cases recognize that some jobs require an employee to travel as part of the work but travel was not of the job per se that the claimant was hired to perform at car gold and nowhere else he was not a traveling employee he when the facts show first he had no exclusive or continuous work relationship with venture but it accepted the war temporary jobs beginning two years before the accident secondly he was hired through a union referrals that paid and he was paid under the local contract with no job lasting longer than six weeks three he couldn't even accept temporary work at the bench or when work was available within his ho locals territory and he did not have to accept a job outside his home local so more venture newberg did not send or assigned him to cordoba as a fitting jobs were all filled through human referrals five it was his choice to leave home and seek employment at cordova after he weighed the pay which was considerable against the cost of travel and lodging sex venture did not pay for the travel or lodging or make his lodging accommodations sadly he was not employed in twenty one through security background checks drug testing and processing at cordova eight he was not on call or instructed to report earlier than scheduled on the day of the accident and finally he was hired for only one location and paid only from the time he cl until he clocked out those are the undisputed facts of record the grease discuss the trailing employee cases there are many of them the facts differ from case to case but the common denominator in each case is that the employer sends the employee easy on the jury on the journey it's at the employer's direction this is true even in the two cases that commissioner lied  eye on a boilermaker welder was sent by his longtime employer to a job in minnesota and the employer paid for the mileage the facts in this case are not a fit for the right chicago bridge and iron or any other traveling employee case in illinois here unlike right in chicago bridge the claimant is not employed by us and sent to way from our premises he did not have a continuous or exclusive relationship with us he couldn't even accept a job with us if there was work to be had in his home local one thirty some he simply chose to temporarily relocate closer to a job opportunity notably in both right and chicago on the employment relationship was formed both for the employer he sends the come before recruit and i think that's a loaded term because if you want the facts out there are shows the opposite he is now three crudity anymore on any greater way than anyone else who is a member of local twenty five when he is working as a pipe fitter in the same plant they're all paid under the same local contractor mr doherty is not making any more money as an inducement to travel from springfield ok if you look at the right chicago bridge there's something extra this being added to his paid mileage per diem whatever here he's not getting anything even lost a seniority by moving temporarily from springfield to be closer to the job so if he's been recruited everybody working there is being recruited and by that reasoning everybody's a traveling employee and i think that was part of you know i think that's part of what was obviously of great concern to the dissent in the appellate court but also i case we're going to do it in and then they go into your recruitment analysis if you look at the record there is nothing extra being paid to him he's not being recruited most are going to say everybody's recruited because he's treated the same as everybody else in or out of that or if you had one set of facts or susceptible to different reasonable inferences there would be a difference the facts are not disputed here we have a question of a lot which is is somebody considered a traveling employee even when they temporarily relocate to be closer to a job opportunity he was not our employee when he left springfield he was not our employee when he got to cordova he only was hired when he won through the screening successfully and was hired at the point where they had one location and he never had to travel away from that one location to there's no legal difference the wilmington address is not relevant to this house he wasn't hired there he wasn't going there before he went to court over terrorism whether or not he would fall within the trampling employees exception is there a difference between the two places with it i've stated that i don't believe that it has any relevance the only employer promises that we're talking about here should be cordova because that is where he was hired that is where he was to perform his duties and he never had to travel away from those premises but let's compare that to some of the traveling employee cases because i think that's maybe what you're going in to site and you can say at any one time that he is traveling away from the premises in that situation he is going out he's coming back he's an employee chicago he goes to the minnesota job site at the end of the job he may not have a chance but over nineteen years periodic point he's being moved around each time by his employer his one annoying employer to work from site to si and you can say that the work location would be the premises because he is being moved around from location to location here it's a different situation he is now at our employee until he shows th he never shows up at the woman to assess just the business interests for the excellent company so i do think that the only relevant premises in this case would be the cordova plant premises h is that now that you're into that that is better certainly rob i can stand up here and say it's not relevant ok let's talk about that for a second he has four different stints never longer than six weeks over two years he's working at three locations one location is constant it's about an hour drive from springfield he doesn't go he's driving straight from summering field to clinton and back ok so a traveling employee in that situation simply because he's driving directly to the site when he's hired only for that site and never travels away from that site but we would say no i think that case i would support that that's coming and going second by sales there's nothing in the record about that cordova second time a car door he was going to be there for two weeks from march twenty three to april sixth he's hired for only that location in chicago bridge the court emphasizes the fact that he has continuous employment and you know what it might be a different case mr chief justice if like chicago bridge we employed him and he was employed nowhere else and he was going you know from site to site the three or four sites that you're talking about but that's not the case that we have here here the job that's going to discuss bridge and write we think that the rules should be clear and simple one becomes a traveling employee at the employer's direction or because the nature of the job consistent with the doctrines purpose in the case law and not because someone who is not an employee makes a personal choice to seek temporary work away from home apart from the traveling employee doctor in the commission found that the claimant was entitle to benefits because the course or method of travel was determined by the demands or exegesis of the job held court never base never reached that issue didn't basis decision on this exception to the coming and going rule but even if it had the commission could not be affirmed on that basis for this exception to apply the employer must exercise control over the course or method of travel we did that exercise any control over the method or course of travel to the point the claimant and his coworker were using their own transportation but they chose how to go there and where to stay and they were scheduled to work normal hours and were not on call at the time of the accident although the commission did now find that the claimant had to stay within a certain distance of the plant if found  whole practical matter close quote that he and co workers had to stay within a reasonable commute respectfully that's not the test if i were the test in chicago bridge and iron is wrong because if you remember when the of travel and it would be unworkable if it became the test because then it would be up to the employee eat and not the employer to decide whether a particular commute was too far without a temporary relocation concert to the job the claimant was not required to travel outside his home locals territory he one of his own accord through you know a fool to pursue a job when none was to be had within his home local my name's john nestler and i represent ronald doherty he's employed in this matter who was injured while traveling to a power plant located about two hundred miles from his home i would respectfully ask that this court affirm appellate court's decision was simply that the evidence in this case the record in this case supports the arbitrators excuse me the workers compensation commission's decision that ronald ortiz injury rose out of course it is employment and that's really what the issue is here today whether it's emissions decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence and if there's any evidence on the record that supports the commission's decision that decision should be affirm travel was determined by the demands and extension c's of his employment these are two separate exceptions but they share the same focus and that focus is on the demands of the employment not the instructions of the employer so they control over the employees travel no ma'am they do not the case is all unanimously state in one they read dress the rule of a traveling employee but it's the duties that must be looked at duties of the employment the demands of the employment not the specific instructions of the employer and if that were the case i'd respectfully submit that employer would creatively get around instructing any of their employees on where to travel or how to travel and just allow the demands of the distinction between mr doherty and those who are pointed locally at twenty five arises out of one of the foundational reasons for the traveling employee rule in the first place and that is that mr gordy was retried was required to travel from a remote location to employment out of town and out of town employment as is acknowledged by this court in the right case carries with it inherent risk that mr doherty as someone who is from out of town is unfamiliar with and that includes the venture the employment is what required t venture agrees with exelon that they're going to perform maintenance on their power plant and they assess how much time is going to be necessary for this i mean it's and they agree yes we can perform this job and the job is this maintenance within a restricted amount of time and they then assess the local manpower and they determine whether or not that's going to be sufficient in order to meet the demands of the strike and if it's not sufficient to meet the demands of the job then they must ask remote workers they have to have gordy to accept the job or not looking at the chicago bridge case the court specifically states that the employee in that case was under no requirement to accept the work nor was the employer under any requirement to offer the job but so so now union in in short answer that employee that you're discussing doesn't face that conversational reasoning behind the traveling employee exception and that is that by accepting out of town employment he's exposed to risks inherent to that out  when you're out of town for your employment there's an inherent risk that you're unfamiliar with here your on for a million with that with the roads in that area and with that becomes a quantitative increase to quote what the court says and right that the risk  increased for that travelling employee versus the employee who is from the area and familiar with the with the risks associated with that area and i think it's important that the right case goes on to state that this never goes away that even if you're there for six seven months at a time commission makes a factual finding that he was regularly employed by the and that to quote their word on page speech three of their opinion that he was regularly employed in two thousand and six by this employer and would go from plant to plant to perform the perform the necessary work and the demands of the employment the seven days a week that ten to twelve hours a day are the exact demands that the committee that the commission references on page eight and both put the second paragraph and final paragraph when they specifically state that they draw different inferences than what the arbitrator drew from these and that the inferences that are drawn by the commission because of these facts are twofold one that the venture that the onus was on the bench or to fill it and point requirements and that that employment required that people travel from remote locations in order to perform the work necessary and number two and i think the most important if i may quote to the court how they phrase it they state that respondent was required to require recruit from the local around the state for fill the manpower requirements and petitioner as a practical matter was required to stay within a reasonable distance from the plant to meet the demands of his job and i think that that sentence really states exactly why this case falls within the traveling employee exception because it's the demands of the job that are requiring mr doherty to travel out of town for his appointment to quote a phrase from another supreme court case away from this away from in my answer to the to the petition for leave to appeal that states that whether or not the employers the courts crimes this is a question of fact and i'd also mention that the argument that the employee's premises in this case should be a special construction rule is exactly what the right case deals with on point with that and they rejected this court rejects the notion that a special construction exception should apply and then finally with regard to the premises i would also note for the court that the first time this has even been brought up is on do all of its work at a certain location because that's where the job is those employees are cramming away from the employers premises to the work site whether it's construction or something else i believe that that's the that is correct to a point  in my point is that i don't believe it's dispositive on whether or not they're traveling poison the traveling employee exception when looked at one doing all of this court's precedents becomes a question of back it's been long that the employment the duties required of the employee require the necessity for travel and i think that if the demands of the employment require him to go away from his home community as discussed in us industries and health tracker then that definition is met and if the duties necessarily take the employer away from the premises of its employer as discussed in irwin nice lower than that definition is met but we can't get away from the fact that this is a factual inquiry inquiry which is appropriately left to the commission and this case the commission looked at all of the facts and said directly in their opinion we draw different inferences from these facts and what the what the arbitrator drew the inference is that we draw are twofold one that the venture recruited mr durrant they needed skilled employees to come in to finish this job the employment required them to do that and number two with the demands of the employment the seven to ten the seven days a week that ten to twelve hours the fact that it was strongly suggested that they stay believe the fact that they knew they had to be near the plant within half an hour and then globally that they still had to be ready willing and able to work in other words they couldn't drive two hundred miles back and forth perform this work schedule in meet the ready willing and able requirement that the duties of this job dictate and i think that it's important to take all of these facts into consideration when determining whether or not factually an employee is a traveling employee so to say that while everybody local twenty five is now a traveling boy you can't say that because you have to look at the facts and circumstances of the injuries in those cases before you can begin to make the evaluation and so i believe to say that this somehow creates a blanket exception for anybody who's traveling out of town is just incorrect i believe that what it's really doing is saying that under these facts and circumstances under the facts the circumstances present here he's a traveling employee and i think this point shines through even in the fourth district union where they say that the undisputed facts as they call them are that he's traveling away from his employers premises but they don't stop there they don't say that that's it they say to a location that's over two hundred miles from his home so even in the appellate court's opinion like the commission's opinion they're taking different factors into consideration other than simply whether or not he's traveling away from the employer's premises mr minister you stated  i think to answer that question we have to see how this court has defined a question of law and this court defines a question on henry case and they state that a question of law exists only when there's understated facts and those facts are  different inference from the facts in this case they state the commission disagrees with the arbitrator's conclusion the pension would disagree does not the imprint well i think i think that  the dispute of fact is one whether or not he was required to stay near the plant and i think you know they largely tied together in a certain sense that the one of the disputes in fact is whether he affect on that issue they draw the inference that he wasn't required to state that he didn't choose to stay but instead that the requirements of the employment required in the stay there so the fact that there is no dispute that there was no alternately decided that newburgh didn't directly say we want you to stay here but ronald already in his testimony always said that it was his understanding it was supposed to stay within a certain distance from the power plant so i do think that there was that dispute in fact but i think that the commission in their decision said that there was no express instruction from on high run of the already unique state here so that's why they move on to the inference versus the actual fact  that the record that is correct your honor that he ronald already testifies that he was to be within half an hour of the plant in case of emergencies he doesn't say they told me thirty minutes but he says that in his experience through the point of what then a half an hour was reasonable and perceivable activity so i won't say a great deal more about that and unless you understand any other questions i would just ask for this court please affirm the workers compensation commission and thank you very much for your heard something about the standard of review here but the facts regarding the union referral and the terms surrounding his employment are not disputed and we think of you should be in the noble unlike chicago bridge and iron employer didn't send the claimant or assign him to cordova he's not hired until he goes through screening at the plant under the contract he's only paid in the time he's clocked in cox out we don't pay travel we don't paid the motel he was to go to a point just company he was not on call that day and there was no emergency when the accident happened those are the undisputed facts but even if you believe the review is not the no vote we submit the determination by the commission was only reasonable and and unjustified expansion of the traveling employee  cases you can apply the law just as well as if not better than the commission and we submit the commission misconstrued chicago bridge and iron and right we really didn't hear anything about uniform process from counsel he said that we requested claimant to travel that's not correct under the case law and one of the case we cited is correct construction in the reply brief claimants employment with us began only when the last necessary to form the contract for hired took place at the plant it's after he completes the screening and this is true even when the hiring is done through the union referrals they are not our hiring agent we hire him at my job and he never travels away from cordova the definition of a traveling employee he is one whose work requires playable away from the employer's in this case cordoba should be viewed as the relevant premises this travel brought him to and not away from cordova that was the only location for which he was hired we think the case should be submitted and decided under the coming and going be very clear because there's some question of i think it was from justice to thomas about whether cordova should be considered the premises look if the employer sends an employee from si dispute there but if someone like the claimant who is not an employee goes of his own volition to pursue a job away from home that person should not be considered a traveling employee and that is how the commission and the  expanded the doctrine we didn't send him away from cordova he chose to travel there and that was to pursue a job opportunity this case presents a question for the court that's going to be very important in the future is temporary it is temporary relocation makes someone a traveling employee and to didn't tell you about but that's something that i think you have to acknowledge but it couldn't draw the line and the appellate court didn't draw the line and opposing counsel other than to refer to fa hasn't given you any limitations any principled basis to limit the reach of the appellate decision but this court has the highest court in the state of illinois has a responsibility responsibility to construe the act reasonably and i'm less this court is prepared to hold that all temporary we locating makes one a travelling employee you should reverse if there are no further questions we ask you to reverse the thinking