upon which the circuit court room ruled an error which we moved to correct today on appeal each of these there is a little more interpersonal all three of the issues are matters of law which should have never got to the jury the court has instructed us to look st at the issue ok and isn't that what plaintiff did is part of his job that is try to bring the job and and few man hours as possible or under the expected man hours mr porter performed his job which he was hired to do in which he admitted as a foreman for a theory and it's a term and condition of their employment that they're always to bring in jobs under budget so what mr porter one does that mean under budget so when a job is that a certain number of man hours are s the job should be brought in at or below and mr porter admitted that it was his job as the foreman of his crew to ensure that that was mad or it to bring in the job under those hours so in this instance he didn't perform anything in addition it's a rule that says when you're ari obligated to do something such as here he was already obligated to bring in the job under the man hours you have to do something more in order to show consideration for it which is not the promise to pay the bonuses and forceable for lack of consideration would be employees only giving the same service you've already agreed to do with the employer correct your honor and that's exactly the case here oh i guess we're wondering if so what is the action that he did that would support the modification  last forty four years in his career to work to the best of his ability and bring in these jobs under budget so he never did anything more to offer any consideration for this bonus and your honor mentioned a modification in the bonus there was no modification it was a discretionary payment from the beginning and they made the determination based on their discretion and their ability to do so to not end up paying that based on which i understand your position on the st issue and you're saying this on the biggest to you will because there was nothing   at the point of did you simply continue to do everything he was doing before there was in fact no consideration for the ball correct your honor now but but plaintiff wasn't happy well employee correct he could have quit at any time he actually was a union employee so from that aspect he wasn't an at will employee because we did not have the ability of the employer to fire him for any reason we would have had to gone through the terms and conditions of the c v a so from that aspect he was not an at will employee now your honor maybe look at that he could have left  and because in that instance the man was working on the night shift in the court noted that he didn't have to continue to show up but he did and he testified that part of the exchange between him and the employer was that  from porter in actually so there's no testimony that it was to induce his continued employment in puerto actually testified that he after the part new job he wanted to keep running work for a few moran whether or not a bonus was that issue so the facts here actually show that it not necessarily because it depends it's a discretionary bonus so as an employer unless there's something in writing which there wasn't here saying that you know that he's going to get it under certain terms it's totally the employer's discretion whether to issue a bonus often in the law for an example it's a written document where it explains the terms but here that wasn't the case now here that our trial judge did rule that there was consideration as a matter of law before the jury heard any evidence correct correct you're on and how do you not argue however that the evidence at trial failed to prove consideration even though the jury didn't consider that element was that part of your argument well our argument is that we agree whether that's an issue of law and in our directed verdicts in our j n o v we argued that the evidence showed a total lack of consideration here so her ruling was in error as a matter of law ok so and she  d with respect to consideration on the plaintiff's motion lemony number three correct correct but you didn't ask for a new trial you asked instead for a judgment and i'll be we did your honor and the reason for that is all the energy you know we didn't mention the number three by number the motion and women a we argued that she erred as a matter of law so that you know if consider if there's no foundation of consideration essentially the whole house of only evidence of consideration was that he did his job and nothing more and we are our position is now that as a matter of law there was a total lack of consideration explains to us that you have to give up a specific job over there has to be some concrete detriment and here the testimony from mr porter when he was unemployed at the time he took his job with us and that he never saw any job or gave up any job and so that further further solidifies the fact that there is no consideration and that is part of your statute of frauds argument is that those two actually went together your honor so that also goes to the consideration and then moving on to the statute of frauds are very similar reasons as to why  there's no consideration the statute of frauds also applies here book doesn't fall performance take it out of the statute of frauds and that is an exception to the statute of frauds however we believe that the full performance here that that exception wasn't satisfied provision may not unless have the contract in for so in other words the supreme court's they have an order for plaintiffs to overcome the fact that his oral contract was not supported by a signed written document his full performance must have been possible  exception to apply in this case porter has to establish that his performance was soley attributable to contract in that element is not met here for the same reason that there's a lack of consideration because he only did the job that he was for the job that he performed this isn't a situation where the only thing left to do is pay them he received his wages as overtime even double time in some instances and now you i would just i would just point back to the language of the statute that explains that the has to be performed the one year and i would also add that in order for that full performance exception to pull us out of the statute of frauds that it has to be so in the performance has to be easily attributable which it's not he being executed it also has to be executed in a year and maybe maybe i missed the phase it has to be capable of being performed in one year and if the performance doesn't take place within one have had to been brought before if we find preemption under that alan are you the options were that he would have had to brief his grievance through the union grievance procedure it would have gone to arbitration and then he could have brought a that poker had spoken to the final about a bonus so with that sad how can your client now turn around and claim that it's on contract was in violation of the part essentially if we have knowledge of this happening essentially you're asking if we knew we were violating the n r a and here it's if plaintiff's allegations are taken as true it would be a violation of the n r a and it would have been an unfair labor practice and therefore the claim would have been preempted from the war but that joint really was a very different situation there there was a written employment agreement governing the discharge of these employee nurses correct  the supreme court require the employer to give consideration because the employer had unilaterally taken away certain rights that had been granted under the employee handbook  so it was the employer who had to furnish consideration is that as it had sought to reduce the right of the plaintiff's employees under the hand of the person ok so the defendant provided nothing of value to the plaintiffs there and right right with that i think and so consideration for this modification of the employee handbook that operated to the disadvantage of the employee was not supplied according to that case by continuing to work because it took away from right here how how were any rights taken away this is a totally different this sounds like mother right more it sounds like what you're saying that someone is entitle to a bonus if they agree to continue their employment would it seem reasonable to suggest the analogically the offer made by the defendant was you accept this bon he would be fired so why not in this situation the condition of it was order offered us put on the table was you accept this bonus or which is consistent with the condition that the employer place the other issue which could be applied i mean i'm not i'm asking you if there is anything inconsistent about the analogy between the case that appears on its face to be distinguishable because it was supposedly a condition that the employer imposed upon the employee with the alternative that if there was noncompliance there would be a determination that point imposed by the employer and if we took the same factual scenario in substituted in the one distinguishing factor which is a benefit instead of a detriment and a benefit that if it wasn't accepted by he might employ your client then he would be fired so how does that case apply agreement that was and that change the core terms of that employee was working under here this misreported was governed by a collective bargaining agreement and the terms of that collective bargaining agreement never changed so there was no detriment here there was no unilateral changes that could have happened had we made a unilateral change the terms of that employment it would have been potentially an unfair labor practice and it would have right our claim back to our preemption  arguments as we noted he never testified that he worked hard and he also didn't testify for example that he would have been terminated if he didn't accept this bonus and in fact we couldn't have terminated him if he didn't accept that bonus because it also would have been in light of the fact that it's not a detriment to the employer to have something done more favorably paid here we would look to the preamble the jurisdictional statement and the union security statements which explain that this c v a governs the wages in the terms and conditions of employment and so when you read those as a whole it would need to be interpreted we would need to interpret the as the whether or not is the entire agreement and then we also need to look to the wage provisions here it had a minimum wage provision and also for example had a high paid her vision we would be an interpretation warranting preemption and we have to determine whether those are the high and low low boundaries that we just can be paid within and whether any additional wages are left so whether or not there was any consideration at all is governed by the c