state police merit if you look at the job descriptions what is the scope of the southern you are quite extensive complaints are filed by other employees were also doing and that in my opinion i put those other boys are from different you are right that the there's there's a lot of what we didn't do it i discussion sometimes here as to what the authority of people have and what and what they what they actually had have experience in this case show rights discrimination and other litigation on a statewide basis he advises both orally and by written position papers the 's done this he's one of his functions in his job description is to draft labor agreements both hope labor in the performance case it's still your position that they are who's a lawyer and is in the state police situation that this policy as a public service administrator to treat him as a managerial confidential employed because of his job description really delegating many of these duties that really job description for whatever reason that would not make any difference right under the seventh circuit feel like you know like if someone for example  one of the problems you know when you're dealing with dealing with contracted ministration and that language is not if just ignored it's it's left out here this this employee and and all the disciplinary action so one of the things they do is is consult with a review of the collective bargaining agreement policies of the state laws but they think they have they're marriage ariel a supervisor of confidential boy i think it just becomes far too easy for management to write job descriptions that are going to take everybody on out of out of collective bargaining so that's why i think the trap description is a relevant piece of evidence but it's also important to examine what the employees actually do and also what they are reasonably expected to do in the future that's what the board did with regard to mr jarvis what the board saw the evidence that he had one time in gauge in interest arbitration in which he had  the board looked at that evidence and the board also concluded that it was likely in the future that he was going to continue doing that due to budgetary constraints that the state police face the state police was not going to be able to rely on outside counsel as much in labor relations matters but in contrast mr condell us had never handled labor relations matters like an interest arbitration and he wasn't even trained to handle them so the board felt that the evidence was difference as to mr dallas and concluded that he would not be disqualified that well might not be able to happen that would be up to i mean it up the possibility would exist that the state police could file a new petition to remove him from the bargaining unit if they felt that it was necessary to use him or to use some other attorney that was a part of so that would be a possibility if the state police wish to do that but there's no indication in the record that something like back was likely to happen if something like that was likely to take place remember of how studied also was there to cover most labor relations matters but at some point there it was a likelihood of something like that happening the poor would have listened to evidence about that but the c m s has the burden of showing that one of these exclusions applies and they didn't present any evidence that can dallas in the future was going to be placed in the position of our family labor relations but we did a lot of these cases over the last several years yes indeed for us do you detect any trend in any court the seven series yet to go in the direction that that mr weiner suggested that we have a bright line and we look at job description i'm for do you think we're always fact specific so you've got two people perhaps making the same wage perhaps designated exactly the same and they have the same background in this instance a law degree and and certain amount of experience and we treat them differently because  sitting on their desk i don't really can i think that there's a trend to rely exclusively on a job description to the opposite if these are always  to the notion that while this is part of the actual powers that the person has the person actually has the authority to do this even if they don't do it very often but  i still think it's important to look at what the person actually does and not just a piece of paper saying the person can do it because again you're putting so much power in the hands of management just practically nonexistent that he has managerial duties and even if it's true he's involved in discipline but being involved in discipline doesn't make him a manager and his  one without mr hastert he's proven he can't solid case without the approval of mr hosty and a couple of other higher ups the chief of staff and the first step to director he doesn't even see  services and they were held not manage areal and they had more authority than mr dallas does here with regard to conducting litigation here or he files the complaint and then he helps the assistant attorney general who actually does conduct a ship in the other case the department of human services attorneys were actually conducting the certainly but i don't think information the board there there was no evidence here that the type of information that doubtless would be privy to and the there's not that much about record on a sun fortunately but there's no information that it wrecked there really wasn't evidence that the type phone information he'd be privy to would be something that argued that his union would really necessarily be interested in or that might give some advantage in the collective bargaining process and i think what you're driving at in the confidential employee exception it's intended to avoid situations where there's going to be divided loyalt because the employee has a loyalty to management that might be tempted to release confidential information that the union might be interested mr mr it would be something that the unit be interested in especially where we're talking about a different union he always prosecute or he's involved with discipline of employees who are in bargaining strategies there was nothing of the congo and not with dallas and he had never handled that labor relations matter and there wasn't really evidence showing that it was likely that he would in the i don't think that would be enough i think i think again the focus should be a reasonable expectation what have they should have they shown some reasonable so this is in reality it was pretty much expertise if there would be a very occasional natter aside outside the area of expertise i believe the evidence was one time let's just  first of all regarding the third test the reasonable expectation is that test is only to be applied were no collective bargaining agreement was previously