we should all this now and i would like to it's rather preponderance i even as it relates to the you know words state employees not with but extensive i'm not going to go through all of the authority to reconcile functions relating to the overseeing employees operations or would indicate responsibility for the performance of a subordinate work these functions which you're familiar with so i won't go into an extension both but it's a two zero one one illinois after four and four zero nine zero nine six six when just a statement says that as far as the inspections as far as your feel what they're going to be doing this week next week and what needs to be done as well as what might  wrecking support under the this case involves the field tax for the only part of transportation these are the people these are the very people it done and then they come back and they review it and they inspect it and they see if the work's done properly and i'm in the weather there they're out there all the time  they're there are there are seven hundred highway maintenance people that come on the lead and lead lead workers and that and then there are fifteen hundred snowbirds that they really feel like i'm the architecture spots ability includes completing time sheets scheduling work for the lead or lead workers time off request performance of a way sions filling out a rule infraction what i'm going to be talking to you about at the of the prongs they parties have stipulated that their work is substantially different so that they have to be very evidence of a direction i've already mentioned to  regarding inspection of damages or repairs and ultimately to verify the damage was prepared if they approve leave requests they approve overtime they determine and they can deny overtime and they determine what even though over time it's based on operationally they determine whether the choice they make whether it's there the feel technicians are the first step which is an optional step but it's the first of the grievance procedure now they don't  resolve resistance relating to this but they resent the result of other grievances under the collective bargaining agreement relating to other matters primarily a call out in those previous and they also in the grievance procedure to get started creation there's evidence that they may participate in that sixty people but but the the field engineers may not you know may not supervise that many people or may not meet the criteria for super or anger manager and here i think there's more than enough evidence to show that the field technicians do not possess the authority to discipline but i think this was pretty much almost conceded by counsel for c m s but the field technicians do is they fill out this notice  states that reporting misconduct is not the same as issuing this in fact evidence discloses that the one field tech actually did attempt to impose discipline he was disappointed were trying to attempt to impose you see someone committing a rule by elation in the interest of the employer every employee has some duty to report instances of misconduct and moreover i think it's in kotex duty great or i don't there's nothing in the seas sixteen twenty six to see sixteen twenty some i think lays out the disciplinary process and in that knowledge by this memorandum which is a memorandum by the department of transportation advising us of how the disciplinary process works i operations engineers the first step of recommending this and that recommendation is and subject of review up the chain of all the way up to the labor relations of the field technicians testified this is how disciplined this is their rol their advice by somebody from the personnel department a personal manager one of their superiors that a particular subordinate is going to be issued just the field technician that prints out the notice of the disciplinary action form sits down with the subordinate and have no reason to believe that the field technician is actually has any independent judgment in actually imposing discipline against us or did he simply being instructed to do so ordered to do so by manage with respect to the issue of grievances i do want to address the point that this issue has been forfeited in our opinion because there is no development of this argument in c m s's you mention it briefly in the statement of facts section nothing in the argument if the court chooses to review this issue precedent holds that adjustment of grievances relating to minor routine matters do not rise to the level of supervisory it is not primarily i  that there is a problem with the call out procedure and that a subordinate is entitled to hours worked that he did not get they have absolutely no with forty two grand that extra paper extra hours independently they have to contact the personnel office and get authority from the person office and i think that most of the heart of a lack of independent judgment to it just so they cannot on their own it just  that case the court i think very beautifully analyzes the level of evidence the burden of proving that the preponderance of element time is satisfied c m s cannot simply come to an administrative agency the labor board  to this court and say well we had a witness testify that one particular field technician or two particular field technicians spent fifty percent of the time or more assigning work that's not sufficient to remind you feel technicians  assignment work is constitutes authority to direct under the direction of the act only if it one affects the terms and conditions of the subordinates of women status and then also if the petition for employees exercise independent judgment there's just a dearth of evidence as to whether these you know technicians exercise independent judgment when assigning work for x amount of time during the day so it's a burden of proof status and the reason for that is c m s never briefed it in the post hearing briefs so the l j never ruled on that there was nothing about proof satis in the exceptions found with the board so the board actually never reached that decision to the extent that the court will consider proof status that nasa stare falters on lack of independent judge c m s as witnesses have testified that the field technicians are not well versed in the collective bargaining agreement the field technicians do is they can raise again report potential misconduct i suspect that this high we mean painter is abusing his sick time then there's a multiplayer review process to go back and look techs are basically doing is taking the complaints from the public from legislators from you know other officials whether they be by email by letter by phone call investigating these complaints locating work they're doing it to make sure the work is accomplished and the sort of pick approved invoices to these third parties that has nothing to do with overseeing or supervising actual state it's i think that's most of subcontract work and i think that the war found that the real work this this inspection evaluation identifying the problems it is like a lion's share of their responsibilities on the  lot they come into work they check e mails they check regular mail they check phone messages they're looking for what are the complaints that they're going to test that takes several hours in any given morning they then get the road they go out and find where are these suppression i mean as a practical matter what happens is you've got to win in tears and leave the workers out on site they're doing the work the first responders are the ones who get the overtime i think what happens really is just we're not done yet we do we keep going takes cannot approve overtime more than ten hours they've got all these restrictions on how much of what their role is and over time nor do they decide who gets it that is all creature of the collective bargaining agreement really recognized or not but who then that's organized that to whom they report and then this all of a sudden they're like this island of supervisors and then the people you know purportedly below them i think it back and see a job if you should come back and see if the job is done right properly in time so yes it's if there is oversight involved there is monitoring that there is a sign  testimony a lot of testimony and it was  ninety ninety i'm sorry in this case you can see from all the groups including the allergies that he spent eighty to eighty five percent of the time assigning work to get support and he also monitors and evaluations subordinates work performance approves and then ice time that should definitely