that the city's health insurance proposal was a permissive way for the union stuff straight right to engage in mid term bargaining and i'm going to address that decision a little later because there's a question as to whether or not that issue was properly before this court the second decision was that the city did not engage in bad faith bargaining by insisting to empty house on uppermost proposal by submitting it to the interest arbitrator firefighters which are also another section fourteen employees have no right to strike section two of the act which is found on a two hundred three of the i mean supplemental appendix so it's for the exceptionally strong public policy favoring interest arbitration a  provides that such other factors are not confined to the foregoing which are normally under traditionally taken into consideration in the determination of wages hours and conditions of employment through voluntary collective bargaining mediation fact finding arbitration or otherwise indians right to engage in mid term bargaining over that mandatory assumption that's one of the progressive aspect comes in and that was specifically addressed that issue was addressed in mount vernon which was issued by the a public and a few years later and i believe it was but that decision which we didn't and tire of it relies upon ignores the fact that it really meant to alter it and house procedures as a prerequisite here there was no such agreement line sense i'm not one hundred percent sure but at the time having interest arbitration they had better terms and conditions of health insurance and the city want to cut costs and bring big unions better terms in line with the nonunion employees lesser terms and that was why we vehemently fight against it health insurance is not only essential to any employee but especially to firefighters you know we're talking about the case when you're in the differences  precludes negotiation over any issues that are addressed and the collective bargaining agreement and that's really the central problem here is that any change the city would make to health insurance during the terms of the agreement the union would eight and two hundred two of the union supplemental appendix and those cases the employers assisted him house on a waiver of a statutory right and submitted those proposals to the interest arbitrator who happen to be the same arbitrator in both cases that it's important to note only addressed as the conduct of the arbitrator it does nothing to address the conduct of the parties that's right the section time for labor are just procedures come into play here the parties have a continuing relationship they deal with one another healthcare proposal by the parties prior to interest arbitration nothing in the record suggests that the issue was raised during negotiations the parties going to impasse over different topics that health care is a mandatory subject of bargaining but what was what was proposed here was that the union give up its right its stance toward right to mid term bargaining over that topic argument that there is a question as to whether the parties were an impasse for section fourteen employees there is a starkly different standard and that is founded upon the exceptionally strong public policy in section two the act that interest invoked period there doesn't need to be and the same analysis for non selection fourteen employees because they have a different statutory scheme for how they reach them pass this is a misreading of chicago they're not in session fourteen section fourteen employees once you reach impasse there is nothing that prevents the parties from resolving their differences so regardless of whether they are section fourteen or non section fourteen if the parties desire they can continue to resolve their differences but here we're found the right to effects occurring is found and section four of the act and that's with respect to managerial rights when there are manager your rights that affect wages hours terms and conditions of employment in house the right to followed the act and followed section twelve thirty point nine labor practiced procedures to deter employers from engaging in the same conduct in the future is essential if the right to strike is going to if the right interest arbitration is going to be the equivalent to the right to strike your of you to they can go back to the arbitrator with this decision but at this point it's not necessary if the parties did some point much later in the future results that show and they're all too soon negotiations for an