are are under the authority of the city and the union's option is to which they did here was grieved during the seven day notice ghosting when changed the issue from being simply a grievance and a discussion of the policy  a second paragraph for the city recognizes that the union would have the right to propose modifications to the current contract and the city you are in whatever bargain obligations they may have in this regard and  discussing it mandatory subject of burning their order then you did not need to be an invitation made by the city to the union to submit proposals it was simply a matter of if the union made a proposal the city was obligated to bargain they didn't make a proposal th she will in the future as sort of a compelling intuitive feel why would they do that your honor i don't know what the intent of the union was in negotiating this language and reaching this resolution but it's clear from the maintains the same position has always maintained during the course of this case that it was our intention to change the policy as we're allowed to do under article thirteen point one of the c d a and it's it's typical to contract and clearly that wasn't the city's understanding and consistent with that counsel testified that there were no overt statements indicating that it was to be included in the contracts and being also and additionally to the point that this was a significant it's a management right and consistent with patrick is this testimony it's not something that the city would have negotiated away her soon to the tentative agreement  to become contract language article thirteen point one in our collective bargaining agreement this this portion of the policy was not a mandatory subject of bargaining this sheet how that discretion percentage of thirteen point one pursuant to the notice requirement did the letter of the union relies upon made a general statement that typically recognises the word pro paracho on or by it but did not speak to this incident and in fact later on in that same letter noted that this the best evidence of that would be the testimony of the chief negotiator for the city and the spokes person for the city who testified that it was never his in understanding or his intent that this would be a contract language shift over to the chief's letter in which he said that he did this was a subject of bargaining in may have been a mandatory subject reflected in the change of the rules and each party had different beliefs as to what the situation was therefore there was not pacifically referring to the t a a of july eleventh two thousand and twelve that that issue has gone completely addressed by the board in this city and this day in their arguments and that is clear objective behavior interrupted him he was asked if he had solicited contract which proposals that were in contracts in the hearing had only been used to refer to a collective bargaining agreement there was no other contract at issue in this case and soon for discussions to the city that an implementor garlics of the fact there is no agreement the city implementing the policy change in january twenty eighth after then you can ask for the implementation to be held in  furthermore a series of testimony regarding this issue would have would have asked for more on something barger in exchange for putting this language into the contract again that subjective testimony that was never communicated to the you know at the time when they were say that what was withdrawn was specifically in response to this clause or is a general concessions here to get the concession here to get that and then your honor if you look at the closing offered by the union