basis we just come to different conclusions about it the law is clear that where the last act necessary or require from playing takes place that's the place that controls the contract so the sole issue in this case is whether or not the going out of the paperwork the taking of the physical and the drug test were the last acts necessary for mr bonk tone's employment with the respondent it is our position that these were not conditioned presidents and there is ample evidence in the record to show why it that's not the case just so we're clear if if those requirements were not even there we wouldn't be here today all the date was established while he was in illinois doesn't what do you make of siegel's testimony that pursuant to company policy the claimant it's not hired until he signs the pre employment documentation takes to physical and drug test what's responsible i question my question i question whether it's true in this particular case not whether it's true in general i think mr von tome is is being looked at as a new employee and i don't think he was a new employee it worked for four years already doing the exact same job there was only to put it in a good order but there was only a six month gap when he didn't work there and then they hired him back to do the exact same job so roy understand what you're saying and so i question it first on that on that basis i question it secondly on the basis and it's really the whole contention that i have in this case is he was only working he shows up for five but it is there any doubt that if he were taking the drug test and tested positive for so many illegal drugs that he would not have been hired no i think he would have been fired i don't think he would have not been hired i think he would have been fired i think this is none of the judges that have ruled on this issue have given had given this any time and in their decisions i don't understand if you're working on how you don't have the job ok and well that was in the way you saying because there's the rub there about this time wasn't there some question over whether he really punched it was working no absolutely no question under bu testimony i produced a time i produced a paycheck for eighty hours ok he didn't start work till nine so we could take the test then he would not pay for eighty hours he got paid for the whole time and the only testimony test is a protester not conditions president is it your position absolutely and i and my third reason for that is the employment agreement that respond accordingly is exhibit number fifteen that wasn't signed by both parties until march he started in december ok and exhibit fifteen of their it weren't albums are opera outlines what they're offering outlines what he's going to get outlines his obligations wasn't consigned to march of the next year that they offered him a job in two thousand and december two thousand november two thousand he came back and started work on monday morning december eleventh two thousand any given sure sign months later three thousand two thousand one right there in the record so if that wasn't signed until four months after he started working is that a condition precedent i don't really think it is it's so it's for those three reasons that i don't think i don't think that that test i don't think that the i date that he was hired they missed him he did a good job but it and they they saw him he didn't call in sick man my job back they called him and said we want you back right he knew exactly what he was doing you know exactly how to do it and it is no stretch that he could have done it at five in the morning ok all you do is ask ask his supervisor what formula are we mak didn't bring it out as much as i should of ok it was only until his court that i when i was really looking at all the evidence and i saw that exhibit fifteen mary nine i said why did i argue as strongly about back to the document i was i'm focused on the fact that he worked for two hours before he did anything ok before they had him sign anything he'd already been working for two hours no less that's his testimony but there's been testimony to rebut it well no not no competent evidence unless you and then i question that to your honor they have all these other documents that were just as old and they have the receipt from the motel that they paid for trying to come up the night before right but they don't have the time card i have the time i have his time is checked you know so why can't they produce the time card why can't they produce the supervisor that would have said i was there five he didn't show up till seven because he had the drug test that day that guy wasn't there either and they have total control over that i can't subpoena things in wisconsin they're not going to i have no subpoena power over anybody in wisconsin so what's going to work so i just don't think that those those documents that were pulled out i don't think the customers performed i don't think any of that was condition preceden i think they were conditions for continued employment and i would not argue about that but i don't think they were conditions prerequisite to his employment and i don't and i don't think that there's anything in there in the record that says otherwise represent in this case i'm asking that you affirm the decision of the circuit court of peoria county if on the illinois just not have jurisdiction over this claim since you have been in show that the employment contract was made in west concent where the drug test but when do you think the drug because of the physical after he started we're going to see the first day his first day back on the job the first day of the job is when he took those and i think one thing i just want to point out in this case is that the case was tried in two thousand and ten he was hired in the year two thousand we're talking about testimony and events that happened ten years before this case was tried and what took place ten years before when he first came back and was hired december eleventh two thousand you say he took the drug test and physical the day he started yes and you have some documents that support there in the record absolutely and also he signed the the  declaration that he hadn't been exposed to any animals that would affect the and what was the date there of those that are the same day the first day back so what is the date december eleventh two thousand and nine months later as councils are presented you disputed that he took a physical on the day that he showed up or i think what was brought before us was that there's an exhibit fifteen which apparently is an employee handbook type thing or some other type of document that apparently was signed you call it a memorandum that was signed some time there after the sector this was a confirmation letter of employment that was there's four physical documents for physical items that were done on that day the first the first day back in wisconsin every single one of them my scouts and went to the hospital was kind of seen for the drug test with the hospital wisconsin for the physical he signed those documents to west counts and i mean again we're talking about when with a trial ten years after his first day back you know we have the documents the documents speak for themselves and their david ok now there seems like the real issue is was he at his machine in five am in the morning before these documents were so our witness and i don't know why he's not credible he says it's very unlikely these schedules for the the food that they make for these laboratory animals are published in advance he has to know specifically where they are in the manufacturing no that is the case that he he had no personal knowledge whether he was there right he was he didn't show up until later that day your witness had no personal knowledge of whether he was there working at five am or not but i will say is that correct and yes he was not there yes right he can't testify to something he doesn't know i mean he only testified about what's in his own personal knowledge that is correct he can say is unlikely or not likely but he doesn't know either way there's a credit that's correct ok but the petitioner did say i punched in my time car and my would miss said he would have had that's not you know evidence of his personal knowledge that he knows one way or another he was not there at that time when the when the when the petitioner first arrived he met privately with bush on the plane was working at another job when your client problems said we'd like you back even for yes put that job to move to that's my understanding you know so that he'd already put his other job before these preconditions you're talking about one man that's my understand he did it based on the offer for a job that the employer many foreign offer cracked yes that's my understanding and i believe that that's analogous to the energy etc but there apparently isn't evidence a paycheck with hours or some documentation that there was eighty hour work performed with these arguing that the only way you get the hour is that if you're on the machine at the time that claim it's just fine was i don't know did they pay him for the whole day because he showed up then did he drink coffee i mean i don't know but doesn't an employer have a right i mean isn't it of mutual consent for an employment contract if this even if he did go away and start working on the machine doesn't the employer have the right to still talk to him hired again the physical the drug test took back thereby i mean it's just not what the claimant thinks i think it's to cover case but even if the claimant did go ahead and switch the machine and best not prove from a contract that's that mutual assent between the the place of the first it was as soon as it had and mr siegel testified that it would have taken place as soon as practical after he arrived which was sometime after seven o'clock the first date of the first day right and so if that's the key to all this then i can i go back to my first argument which is it was already working ok he's he's already been working and i provided proof that he's already been working and they've provided nothing all right nothing that they can they can stand on and  council just brought up was ten years ago was ten years ago look at every one of their exhibits they're all from ten years ago but may found on fifteen other documents from ten years ago ok but they couldn't find the time  if you're working for two hours you have a job right if you get fired after that because you don't sign some papers or because you've been playing with rats then fine but you had the job already have a job when you showed up as far as mutual consent of employment being the key here if that's the whole key here then i guess you also were going to march of two thousand and one when he signed the document that's that's the first mutual consent of employment we have and they're never arguing about that because they can't because it th point it's not two hours that he's been working it's through months and they can hardly say that that was a condition of employment when you've been working there for four months that's why they're not making that document the key document in the case but you don't get to pick and choose