week and was not compensated at all for it and that's violates the f l i say all the city has and defense is a collective bargaining agreement with one set and senate that she believed was for her on duty work for the care and feeding of a dog it does not address over time as to work with the dog collective bargaining agreement does not address hours worked at all  law in the breeze that if the parties are going to say there is an agreement that exempts the city from the f l s say there must be some evidence about the hours worked and employer did not meet its burden city to get any evidence as to how much time was actually spent needed as distinct from loving the dog and  the way the city could have met the requirements the seven eight five point two three was to sit down with her union representative and her to find out an average of the number of hours they did look at that but there's no evidence that any of these other jurisdictions looked at the number of hours actually spent on duty caring for the dog oh yes i'm not sure provision in the honor if they had said we can't we can't say the exact number of hours that she works but based on our study her average number of hours are x hours and this is overtime pay the overtime know if that's considered by the parties and in their reaching their agreement you know that's one factor to consider and whether it's a reason with women right doesn't have to be necessarily the hour's work while some people you know spend a lot of time like for instance  on the employer not the union to make sure that employees are properly paid for overtime and overtime he did not however the city admits that it knew that she recognition of additional duties on the job thank you and needs to be explicit in the collective bargaining agreement what it's for and it's strictly construed against the employer reserve the rest of my time sure my name is mark forsberg i'm a deputy district attorney for carson city nevada and i represent the city in this case i think if there was ever a factual scenario that demonstrates for all of us why c f r seven i don't think that's contested to the issue as it's just agreement reasonable now what shall we consider in making that determination well i think you consider all the factors that are pertinent and what are the amount of money that was offered the amount of work that was look at the other dog handler cases there are cited such as brock and rudolph the amounts of money are not very far different from what was offered here the package of benefits that was afforded to canine handlers is very s i think the court and i don't remember the exact minute number but was a very small number of minutes seventeen minutes per day or something like that all right but i i'd also point out that the times they selected are fictions they're just they're just numbers that are picked to provide some level of compensation for this extra work because there's no way to determine how much is actually spent so you have to pick a number if should consider the number of hours we spend and i don't think you have to pick it out of thin air well you consider the fact that as an employee who has this duty has to do some work at home we recognize that we don't well i think that the collective bargaining agreement does trump f l let's say in that it brings us with the end an exception to the overtime rule we don't have to pay him law enforcement wages for this work we don't have to pay him overtime for this w because of our seventy five twenty three so instead we negotiate with the union they say this is what we want there's a give and take in this process and we arrive at a number i think by the fact that it's negotiated in this way it's reason we're not i don't i don't think we should go behind it and start looking into every collective bargaining agreement and every individual who cares for a dog in determining how many hours they agreement the reasonable agreement between the parties and incidentally it was very similar to the one here encourage a collective bargaining agreement to avoid this kind of circumstance this is the exact problem that we're talking about right now that's far seventy five twenty three is meant to avoid  to be in front of a court talking about whether a given employee worked or tours or was suffered to have work by the employer fifteen minutes an hour four hours a day here claimed here four hours every single day three hundred sixty five days a year in her home and that so we have an agreement that trumps that claim the if the agreement itself is reasonable then it does foreclose the need or even the possibility of providing evidence contrary to the agreement our grievances she gets to all the pertinent factors as we're set for it and some of these cases which are it's not only the hourly rate or the amount of time spent it's the whole range of things it's how much can the department of cord to pay it's what other benefits are provided it's what other how this this particular term fits into the entire collective bargaining agreement this collective bargaining agreement had provisions for overtime as well which i think and i want to make this point the li and again at that time this term was renegotiated by the union and the city i think that under those circumstances the city would not then fall under the exception of the exception that with the exception says that a reasonable agreement exams you from the need to pay overtime so if if you were to determine that this agreement is not within a range of agreements that could be found to be reasonable then we don't have the exemption and we're bound by the overtime provisions however given the fact that this the talent never submitted an overtime slip yet claims that the sixty dollars per pay period was not for time spent at home were worse for follow through is submitted for decision next case to be argued is the mendoza versus the immigration and naturalization service