familiar with but let me ask you about one that has some import for the legal issues here which is you seem to argue on appeal or at least the thrust of your argument is that these officers are full time officers yet their record reflects that working thirty two hours or more that was i consider if we considered for a time but that changed when the bargaining agreement went into place a bargain agreement a place to work more hours and thirty two hours you only initially started out after thirty two hours were considered part time but once you get one in a place it became full time work much more than thirty two hours but when you say we consider it are you looking to the terms of the collective bargaining agreement or is there something in the and part time and is defined as whether they're scheduled for forty hours or less than forty hours or so working thirty two hours or more than thirty two hours but less than forty hours is still part time right agreement yes but what are you fighting on this some because the your clients have rights as regular part time officers right under the c v a correct correct so is not enough they don't have to be full time to have great sort of the i that's what i found as well yes ok and just to be clear your property your clients property interest is under the c v a not under state statute earth ok so we're focused on the c v a regular part time have the right not to be transferred demoted or suspended without just cause correct correct ok let's assume for a minute that that constitutes a property right right what process are they do walk to do the process to do the process that any event there are any type of terminations proceedings do beef afford to procedural due process rights for a lot of military which they weren't afforded in this case when a couple of the officers were terminated and other ones or hours were reduced after the people who are protected under state civil service laws or federal civil service laws or their tenured faculty or people that look like tenured faculty like perry the sentiment here we've got people who have no right to be on the schedule at all because they're part timers in every monthly council meeting they were advised that they had no guarantee of any hours correct they don't get to have any hours but again they were working thirty two dollars or more hours but then or hours would drastically cut once the agreement when it's a place that was held against them adverse action was taken against them and worked to bust the unions to discourage the union and to discourage any other police officers that came in new hires from joining the union as well so adverse action was taken against them after the collective bargaining will clearly ever said actually they can because they're our hours reduced to nothing but what we're trying to determine what process where they do in light of the fact that they had no vested right to any hours at all so there was a there was a grievance process right that allowed them to determine whether they were terminated for just cause by then they perceive that  file a grievance but the union ignored that i mean the girl ignored that they would not even schedule entertain the grievance process because one officer answered became the chief of police he was working probably in excess of forty i think the dealer and everyone four out of all the four officers i think they did have one daughter more caring for the shock that was the only one the other forty didn't have any lot of the hearings for the others commenced decoration progress yes given as is determined pointed out that even under the the the definition of regular part time officers that they're not guaranteed that particular hours or particular so they're losing property rights money in order to support their families but if we're looking to a contractually defined property right that the definition of part time destroyed or that they were demoted or this was otherwise being disciplined well yes the reduction of hours i would presume would be i do motion would be a deprivation would be not even if they i was there i guess you can call it a lot of her what do you do with that that you have at least on appeal consistently argued that they are full time officers and you haven't characterize the action taken against him as a demotion or discipline or even a constructive discharge what why aren't those forfeitures as two arguments that you would need to prevail on to fact when discovery was done in this case i deposed at least three maybe four to council members and they said everything was fine with the police department which these four individuals do they were doing a great job wednesday unionized things have any benefits right now and i guess we're duction hours could be a demotion but we're dealing with workers who had no right to a fixed amount of hours right it was the number of hours that they were assigned on a month to month or week to week basis was a matter of grace at the discretion of the council i suppose right i would agree with your yes but i guess the argument is why are working certain amount of hours don't want to contract goes into place two guys are fired and the other guys are down to one day a week one guy's done a one day we can have the guys down to two days every two weeks have part timers they are sort of fur forced to try to work for two or three or four places at the same time we're right that's right they don't get benefits that's crack but here on like other communities there was a sanctions union that was in place ours but your client signed a contract saying that they had the right not to be suspended transferred suspended demoted or terminated except for just cause correct correct however as the court is question  includes not to be terminated except for just cause that is a property right is it not right and if they felt they were terminated or not getting additional words because of without cause the process the process do thousand and eight and it was renewed for a nd period so there was no immediacy of city actions as players trying to link what the difference was in what sara track was informed of in great detail was through the district attorney's office of missouri county in a letter to informed by dupont as well as the other department the intil the district attorney's willing to accept charges in office who can file charges he doesn't have the confidence of the district attorney certainly can't function on any hours in a part time were full time capacity as an officer so he was well aware of the process and in fact he started the steps of the grievance process he testified in cited in the record that he was aware that was his remedy that he pursued step one meantime he made a decision off off for plaintiffs made a decision which remedy to pursue no d n a not only addressing the question whether there's a property interest in the arguments you're making good to and the adequacy of the process that was available or provided and whether there was justification for example if there was actual misconduct to postpone any process until after action had been taken but the district court didn't it only addressed property interest and if if we're if if we're going to find that there was a property interest because they were part time employees and i haven't heard you explain to us why they say they are not under the agreement wouldn't we need to remember the district court to address the adequacy of the process because as a matter of lawyers two cases that are cited i think both by the district court and our brief that if you virtue of the collective bargaining agreement then this court house to evaluate whether they got the process that they were do well i agree spec we describing cures to sources of a property right right normally under under the constitutional setting you have to look at the state law as you know he's already said we're not dealing with state statutes it's we're looking exclusively to the c b i and the c v a sets forth exclusively what that procedural process how it's not consistent with the case law in circumstances type of argument there are some cases where people are terminated or suspended sort of abruptly because of necessity some sort of protection of the public process but then stopped let me be clear on that one the sequence of the four syrian check we've spoken about at length quite a cask he continued to get hours part time just last night as the contract says there's no guarantee of any hours much less formal so your argument on him is he was never terminated or suspended or demoted he just sort of his hours were reduced over time his sort of died on the vine so to speak when it comes to being employed by the borough correctly describes the true of the discharge again the district court never addressed that because it concluded that they as part time officers had no property interest whatsoever and it appears that neither the parties nor the court reduction in hours they've made an argument that it's it if it is reduced to zero constitutes termination but there are a whole bunch of other rappers actions that are also bleed out as parameters to a property right in the collective  of misconduct in other words for disciplinary reasons their hours are being reduced that too seems to be within the parameters of the just cause requirement and you may or may not be able to show that you may or may not be able to show that the post deprivation process was appropriate here but none of this was addressed by the district court because it was only addressing the threshold property interest question right well the court instance the waiver argument which we've made in response to the court's request for additional briefing on the four tank which points out the difference between the borough act the broke owed and tenure act so i do think th window with that affords property rights under the collective bargaining agreement for the procedural to process what process where they don't and i think the collective bargaining agreement the district court didn't didn't address the explicit language of the collective bargaining agreement that appears to provide it property interest to regular part time officers even defining them as as those officers who don't have any guarantee of particular hours yet nonetheless can be demoted or otherwise disciplined without just cause doesn't the district court need it if if and when you have not even yourself a little briefing don't seem to take issue with the collective that that language in the collective bargaining agreement imputing a property interest but rather you went directly to argue that post deprivation process was adequate under the constitution right so you concede that for part time officers and the language of the collective bargaining agreement that there is a property interest i don't concede that in for argument for argument's sake if they have the right they have to  themselves i e the process is set forth in the specific we need a decision whatever reason to pursue litigation in court rather than pursue the arbitration process which they are required to do under the contract if the contract the constitutional prevent redemption process that is required except in extraordinary circumstances right but i think the predestination only applies if somebody has a vast the property of right under under constitutional architect well to force them i think there's a lot of case law that says otherwise we can we can disagree about the good can we could i want to go back to the facts for a minute because  with with reduction hours essentially fade away what happens with part time and i'm a former officer myself what happens with the partners that have largely part time to officers is they fall into one of four categories their officers are just that he can i mean they're trying to get experience in trying to get a full time position and the other extreme the retired officers say from philadelphia reading who want to continue to supplement their income there are officers like in here that just work at a bunch of different departments part time while they have a full time job sinister sharan check for example was an auto mechanic for his full time job and supplemented by working part time as officer or category four would be officers who have their certification they've got the act one  academy but for whatever reason can't get full time they don't do well in the tast they don't pass the rigorous standards of departments are looking for full time officers so factually that's kind of how part time officers are hired or employed in pennsylvania and i sn't this a really strange situation it's unprecedented in my experience but if you're doing these kind of cases maybe you can point us to other words but there seems to me to be an internal contradiction here because of the one hand you're telling these folks you're part time there's no guarantee you're going to get any hours at all right and on the other hand you're telling them they have these vested contractual rights not to be terminated suspended or demoted except for just cause isn't there case actually middle district it was similar hybrid where there was this appears to be a collective bargaining agreement i would guess if i looked at it it's probably the same kind of thing that was done here probably part time officers kind of cut and covered by a c b s why this was created in two thousand and eight and i think if you read it its entirety it affords some some balance between the boroughs needs the discretionary decide who they want to put on the street and who they don't which officers they want to put out there more than others which officers month by month they decide are put on the west to even be eligible for the hours and it's council's decision not the officer assured his decision of time the former chief passed away for health problems saran check being the most senior officer in effect became the officer in charge of the department the bring marion who was a retired state trooper and right about that time is when they they don't and as part of their process some guys get more hours some guys got last new officers were brought in the list was expanded and so is by pure definition since they had more officers on the eligible last everybody got less hours overtime is the chief figured out who's really competent who would make the department proud we treat people properly they get more hours in the people that didn't go out last year the current officers operating under the c b s i believe they are now i think we're probably i don't routinely represent do pomp i think if i don't know the i don't i can answer yes or no i would assume it is but i don't know  i can say for a fact it might have been reduced to one day a week which would be constructive dishwashers then the head of the for employment elsewhere in order to make myself it would be at the they're always are drastically reduced where they were actually seventeen page letter from the district attorney that was probably used as a basis to suspend him to terminate saran check but most of the allegations in that letter were proven eventually to be unfounded he was never charged with the crimes the alleged crimes that police officer and another borough so i want to bring that to the court's attention because attorney and me brought it up twice about this so called seventeen page letter from the district attorney before us on appeal i mean is it is it is it the case as i think we heard you say earlier you are no longer arguing that they have any property right under the statute or that there's a reason to wait to four decision here the collective bargaining agreement which i think turning with me provided initially but for some reason why was i with the record so he's going to try to be father another copy of the the agreement and that's when judge me when you review