to highlight just two things first of all with regards to the argument that the labor relations board erred here in their finding go throwing had interpreted a provision of the agreement settlement agreement as opposed to investigation by the federal drug enforcement agency and the federal district attorney's office so we knew at that time that he was still subject to intense credible investigation by counsel then szell why of what you to be reinstated we're talking about a federal investigation from the drug enforcement we're talking about a rural community of seventy four hundred not much goes on in town that nobody knows about there were certain information that was being the forged counsel that were not jeopardize the preferable investigation or dealing with the feds as a hospital during a work on april first it was an interpretation that if you were still subject to a federal investigation we could not return into work what prevent that that this is where maybe the the problem stems from the language  in the agreement that you agreed to should he fail or be unable to return to work at that time so in essence what prevented him from returning to work what prevented him from returning to work was he was still something of an ongoing federal investigation from drug horsemen as well as u s attorney's office i understand you're describing what was happening in the background but what prevented him from being able out was that all parties recognized reinstatement would jeopardize our continued license to operate a hospital and could you explain that what evidence is there in the record that supports  the the the suggestion that the license would have been jeopardized that the you could infer that by the parties stipulate sions and the fact that a federal investigation was still ongoing can you explain that because i'm not sure that you know what the prince is derived from that or stems from that report i should say flows from that may what is it that it can you tell us is there  a special provision in ospital licensing regulations that indicate that if you have an employee who is under a certain type of investigation that it's going to impact on licensing just my wife my my second argument is with regard to public policy and should you find the state labor relations or not here should you find that we err in not reinstating then i would to position that a strong public policy that mitigates against enforcement of a reasonable order if i can bring your attention to something that this very public court said a more important because you're talking about a small rural hospital servicing central illinois where seventy four hundred people in town that's it if you're going to be violating health care services to the general public that public has a right to know that you're not employing or reinstating somebody that's don't trust from that public as well as the employer has a right to expect that employ not to steal drugs stopping someone in a nursing home it seems much more resolved and definite then under investigation nonetheless public policy and i feel that we're talking about just good twenty four month period because on march twenty eighth two thousand and thirteen he submitted himself for six months prison ok so we know that we're we're not he he's not going back not ok we know that he was unable after twenty years but nonetheless it's it's just it's just not right to force an employee for for whatever reason maybe maybe we were caught between a hard place and or rock and had decide whether or not to face what i'm facing right here or front of you respectfully versus what could have been the alternative ok it's just not right to give somebody good still five years from the hospital g isn't it because the hospital made an agreement which is less than clear or from their perspective it is pretty clear that it works against the hospital position on top position specifically had to occur by april first in order for us to restate what that agreement doesn't even stalk about reinstating just talks about terminations so there's no requirement to reinstate i'm not an evil person so that opens up being under investigation no no no the hospital admits to its understanding of its agreement about what the charge being unable to go back to work meant not being locked up yeah yeah to the extent that they meant something other then short being locked up they knew about it these are not my terms in the hospital this was their director of human resources and this was their attorney who served them twenty five years and he was a track language that would cover that and if you're mindful of ok we don't want to reveal anything confidential to the step but you could say well you can return to work unless she's charges have been dismissed or he's under investigation by any law enforcement authority anywhere and you know what they could have done on april first was really short back to work and then say you know we've learned some other stuff time you're you're you're not just a drug dealer you're a thief too and they could have said welcome back mr short now you're fired a whole separate disciplinary proceedings based on the new information they had learned that he would comply with their agreement and we probably wouldn't even be what they couldn't do is the thing that they did do which is to refute their agreement and then try to backpedal and say that you know the new information was somehow included with what they really meant back on september twenty second of two thousand sample the policy favors the orderly settlement of grievances and you can find it in the illinois public labor act were for example its definition of believe organization is an organization that is empowered to or exists for the purpose among other purposes of selling grievances and the act also includes is an unfair labor practice and the attempt to prevent the pol means were the license you're to provide medical hospital services which immunity may be in jeopardy should it reinstate short so you know what what was nervous by that may be agree to stipulate a record and so if there was conceding with it that's the most hospitals evidence could hear of established was to put on a witness to say it me which is very vague and doesn't show that it would and you know  doesn't allow for any finding that it would so is there anything in the record that would provide further clarification that's the complete extract of the evidence in the record on any effect on the licensure is not one sentence which basically was a settlement and part of the title meant was they took out of his personnel file all references to the reasons for the discharge put him on a leave as opposed to terminations and said you know he's not able come back to work on the state you know that he's terminate i'm not familiar enough with the process so this is the answer is obvious for to me at the time the grievance settlement agreement was entered into it was at a point where the hospital could have this said no is the agreement allows us to do and at that and if he did that he asked me could if you are agree we're not going to win this case of arbitration and with drug treatments or all said we want to have this decided by an arbitrator whether or not you can show just cause for just charge because even though he's law favors collectively bargain settlement agreements because the alternative would be if there were no settlements you know would have to take many more cases are patrician which would be inefficient and much more costly to both employers  this court says that the hospital has to pay him with voters in spite of all those facts and that's the as the public would see a good policy would try the policy that stated that reason why we didn't do that is because you continue to be the subject of a criminal but world best occasion so that's out there and i won't bring up how many years i've been doing this if she stop bringing it up ok all too long but i just i just wanted to highlight the fact that public policy we're not repudiating the agreement so the public policy in favor of collective bargaining agreements i don't see that comes into play here we're disputing in terms of that agreement and the more appropriate form to dispute that term would be in a circuit court specific performance