a order of the state labor relations board and the case the low had two counts but only one is on he'll that he say that relations board rule in the were brought by the share before the american mission to discipline deputy dawn dove and there's a lot of issues in this brief i know with the thick three a lot of issues presented but the easiest simplest brown's reversal then it goes to the employer to show a legitimate reason for these actions were taking adverse action it's in a ploy and then if there is a legitimate reason there is a fuel motive analysis to see whether the done went to a business place to hold a person present at least two people present actually there over job or ted o she kept on going back there did more than once she met during business american mission so the l g just simply miss understood or mis represented the evidence of the american mission and i'm sure you're going to hear the national labor relations no special expertise and understanding whether the american mission decision was wracked with american mission rules were violated the american mission has much more expertise with american mission rules were violated by the l g a just couldn't bring in under labor practice so if you fail you still not necessarily have committed unfair labor practices still protection for fail claims you have a right to trial if it's reasonably days no one is a health anywhere that if you bring the off i think though you look at the hates destruction in you go to bill johnson and they basically say when it comes to this petition office he don't get into the motives i and i think there are that of unfairly practice i'm sorry i didn't quite understand is there any case that holds that if the american mission you know is there are still there there are truths that separate question one is whether the risk misconduct by the way that's what's in front of thank you for letting us the chance to speak to you today i think the sheriff spoke the sheriff's attorney what's the sheriff in the county which is also that anomaly may help explain the rationale and how the process works the simpler standing of that this is the sheriff in the county proceeding as one may help explain some of these issues and goes directly to the first amendment issues that was raised by the joint employers employers are joining under the act lawyers and the sheriff is the person who has the ability to oversee the deputies from day to day so there's really not you can't a full employer that have having both the the power of the purse and the power of direction there at the same time so that's over and join employers and it is the sheriff's power to he has extensive disciplinary power under the law of course he has the power to petition his american mission to distribute it to use the sheriff's power to take these actions against employee s which is the reason why the sheriff is there can be nobody else that can there can be an unfair labor practice against because even though the county is a joint joint employer purposes under the act the county doesn't take employment actions really cannot take employment actions against the deputies on a day to day basis the entire argument sheriff is aimed at a decision that says sheriff cannot be held liable for an unfair labor practice period and that this understands if the she liable for them for they were practice then there is no such thing as an unfair labor practice under the law where you're talking about sure that the sheriff and the county be joining lawyers i bring that up because there is eleven c of the act and the un or supreme court's decision in city of burbank which the petitioners quote in their brief first of all the three with respect to the issue of grammys and that was i arbitration that we seek that has demanded the exact same relief in the urban tradition for third line from the bottom on page seven and that's the claim they keep making but that's false and we know it's f the labor acts you can get to the eleventh pretty can't get to that seven percent interest if the labor board is can't make the award back pay which it's specifically authorized to do by the legislature appendix i'm sure that's not available at arbitration reinstate reinstatement is that's correct that's correct there is a there's there's a parallel and overall there's no doubt about that but there is a difference between there's a difference between the actions and there's a difference and remedies that's the first reason why urchin is not usual the second reason is the city of burbank decision under which the illinois supreme court said that there is a dual mode of analysis that the labor board must conduct once the union has shown a prime fish prime case and there's really no doubt that that existed here because we have direct and circumstantial evidence i know that the sheriff says you can't consider the direct evidence because it was any it titian but that's ridiculous it's the sort of the same thing as saying for example if i were sheriff and i wanted to terminate somebody  part of the other reason why it's ridiculous is the only decision which took place and it's a form done but anyway in city of burbank there's a dual mode of analysis and the supreme court requires the board to consider whether or not the reasons for exist charge would legitimate the labor i don't know if it's half or thirty percent but a majority of the brief is directed at this idea that the sheriff's with american mission to see decision cannot be challenged but that is exactly what the supreme court's of the living word supposed to do in the city of irving they're supposed to consider whether or not this religion  and that's the other reason why good challenge is not usual but it makes perfect sense i want to close with the first amendment issue we took the position that the government never has first amendment rights that's incorrect law is entirely consistent with section ten c of the act as long as there are no threats or promises made and someone like the ship speech is protected but we have threats and he has the ability to discipline the people brief does there's an argument that she's not a certified employee or she's not a public employee under the act but she is certified she was certified on the for this dispute arose among the federal law under illinois state law and please are certified or not  ranking officer in the in the sheriff's office would be managerial employee is for all of them there's a test for manage your own employees there's no suggestion that any of the elements the test ingestion that she's a manager by the law is also frivolous and i'll stand on my brief for the for the rest of that argument with regard to whether statutory rights were waived section sixteen of the collective bargaining agreement i've included in my brief i think it needs to be so when the parties agree that there's not going to be the further remedies other than then arbitration what they're saying is that if there's a contract dispute other than the ones we're fighting about they'll be waived labor was very clear that deciding that there was no waiver with regard to whether rich you caught it collateral stop five between the two state agencies one of the points i think is very important to make here because my opponent misrepresented over and over he keeps saying the american mission decisions final or successful it wasn't it's still on review and agency decisions that are on review do not bar other decisions even if they reach different results so the suggestion the collateral s or race you caught up by here is wrong for the simple reason that the american mission decision lives on it's still pending below if it were final push on says that that's ok even though these would seem to reach different results now i think there's been a misreading of the board's decision here the the l j and the board have not said there isn't misconduct here the a l j and that we're saying that th sheriff has the obligation of showing that he would have taken the same actions because there's been a proficient case that he's been harboring anti union animus in trying to show he would have taken the same actions he points we point to the five charges and on two of those of can't defend his decision to bring the charges the political activity charge is very old it predates a lot of the misconduct here and yet it wasn't brought up at the time that she was apparently doing this conduct it was wrong by officer dove with regard to leads it's that the the sheriff turned a blind eye to his own investigators there was apparently footage available of some of the bulletin board where the person who took leads photograph posted that the sheriff didn't go up and go see him didn't discipline the other employee it looks like there's a double standard here with regard to those employees who are exercising your rights and to back her up a little bit don't forget this was a situation where there wasn't a showing of good faith sufficient to show that the charges would have been filed anyway that is why there was a finding them fair labor practices and that is why officer dove was reinstated with regard to the shirts first and then the rights i have first amendment rights  honor said first amendment rights we all have first amendment rights i can petition emerge commission to fire an officer in the county of europe because they're not first amendment rights that action is a statutory right that's the right that the that the sherpas exercising when he makes that petition the cases he's citing typically are cases where people are filing lawsuits i have the right to file a lawsuit too we all do and so maybe there is a privilege in filing a lawsuit when you're faced with an anti union animists charges say i have a right to file a lawsuit and that's correct but with regard to petition the government with regard to the sheriff's rights to the american mission it's my contention that that's not a first and a right i realized that judge easterbrook seems to have suggested otherwise in the concurrence and seventh circuit i've think i've covered my point except for the sanctions i think the sanctions issue is the simplest issue that the board has discretion in this case the sheriff made representations to the board in the answering complaint that were shown to be totally false he said he didn't know that the officer has received and yet one of his debts and he's testified that she had been told what to do about the fact that there was a grievance and then he also testified he didn't know that she was seeking to certify a new union i'm sorry he fees for having to answer those those allegations and so on lesser on the other questions we the that he would have taken his actions but for the misconduct or duff because the elegy mean specific findings that were wrong that doesn't talk to coworkers not to private dug into it personally well she was charged with instigating in the mastermind it's not a double standard just to create the mastermind behind in the illegal act differently than other employees the last thirty three to seven which found a waiver of the right to bargain over reduction in force i do the math because even though that section at no one uses the word waiver and no typical case is the person signs the contract it has an exclusive arbitration clause and then you're bound by it and you made the choice at a time here it is always voluntary by the union afterwards