this is a very simple case either the building you both had a residency requirement or did at the time that mr here he was asked he lived in the village to do both or would he be willing to move to the building that point he was given notice of the requirement to live in the village and shortly thereafter he moved into the village what's interesting the notice was there he knew that he had to live in the village what's interesting is that every other boy who's also subject to local one hundred bargaining agreement also lives in the testimony at the arbitration indicated that every employee who is higher than the same questions you have in the village would you be willing to move into that you could design leaves bargain with the union about the residency re i think that the statute would not have that language in it if belvedere lied to these employees i think that under that standard  what's interesting i've had to argue on the size of this because i have also to go she hated the contract with the fraternal order of police the only reason it came up was because of the change in the law where the statute made that a mandatory so be argument it has not been it is not now and i know there is no longer that it is a mandatory subject excess of a million but in a small community like the village you do but there's never been any mandatory subject even though the village has remained open to negotiating it it's not something that  was ever raised by the union each one of the employees and mr garrett in particular who is the issue this is deal was told about the residency requirement and there he was not willing to comply with th act the at the arbitration there was quite a bit of testimony because this is a central issue of both the mayor and trustee right testifying to unit employee why wouldn't it just follow i think that's where the status quo came in with the arbitrator and with judge here that this had been the state of affairs in the village he was understood by only management it was understood by the employee that there was a requirement if you were an employee of the village you do vote you lived in the field there that was never challenged in any way the first time that this was ever a challenge was when mr garrett moved from the building you both braver and that one decision had to be made is there a residency requirement or not it's always been the case that every employee of the final standing in the court in reviewing this that the circuit court level has a very limited scope of review and that when this court reviews the decision of the arbitrator you know to the judge in a certain court level their reviews are very limited basically to disturb the decision of  doctors company forty seven eleven thirty five fifty eight in this case is that interpretation of long plans are one of the down the one don't agree i think that it's only possible to have the only public relations labor relations act applying this case because the legislature  city that police officers and fire fighters have a mandatory subject barring residence and the and i believe the policy behind it if you read some of the legislative history behind it was that police officers and firefighters especially police officers if they live with community rest as that's a high i don't think that the balancing test of bias in this case i don't think that the decision that was made by the arbitrator in this matter was gross error he was looking at what the status boy village of people at the time that they were hiring was given notice that you knew they had to live in the village if they did not live in the village they had to move within the village in order to be employed ever asked to negotiate the issue of residence certainly if they had been brought up the village could made a decision at that point to decide whether or not it was mandatory s bar but it was never brought up i think that because it was not what else could the village do but to follow its own ordinance and to follow  the status quo which had been established over at least a thirty year period if there had been a question raised about residency if a member of union then i think we have different pace but in our certain things it was a very simple matter either there was a residency requirement or there was not there was  an opportunity for a hearing for the bargaining unit and mr garrett come forward and present evidence why they didn't think there was a residency for whatever reason i think that over time that the status quo was grady's before the arbitrator and he was convinced by the evidence that there had never we're finding prior to entering into this agreement and prior to any entering into this arbitration both sides agreed to be back down by the river traders decision and here we are all this time later and here on still arguing the same case that was argued to the arbitrator there was argu circuit court and then he's arguing the same case here for you today  affirmed and judging here it did in his review of circuit court level there's still no evidence of any ros matter that in order to understand what he is alleging is is a gross error requires