fact that the parties got to him passed i think on april eleventh two weeks after they started bargaining and imposed a two week streamer transferrin remedy then the park issue would be the same under either analysis as i indicated to the court officers who were temporarily detailed to the state correctional officers association a statewide union but while they were detail to be business agents for the correctional officers association they remain paid by the commonwealth they got lead days by the commonwealth they have pension credit by the commonwealth and they have an absolute obligation and a greed to bargain to return to their previous position as correctional officers once their appointment ended at any particular time understood that once their time with the force of with the state preferences ation ended whenever that may have ended that they would return to their positions correctional officers and in fact if it could i'm sorry if it could or that they commonwealth and the association in fact they were always correctional officers they always when i was right they have no one here i could concede the point that they didn't have an obligation to return but it was substantially equivalent they were technically on a leave of absence is that not the case that's correct that's what the record demonstrate is they were given a leave of absence to serve as as a business agents for the state correctional officers but during that leave of absence they continued to prove benefits from the commonwealth and they retained their position as correctional officers and have the opportunity to move back to their position as pressure officers and in fact mr park admitted that he had was able to listen to mr park and evaluate his testimony as credibility and determined that he had not he had willfully decided not to take the the job available to him returned to the question of impasse yes and as i understand representing was to pay me the gross glee salaries of the employees i guess at the and which  we don't have in the record to wait any indication that the the apparently absolutely secure one week of fact gross pay was less than the gloss that they were put on the notion of what is a legal impasse was correct it was still the case that so far as appears the offer of the employer was consistent with the transfer minimum that is the point that the minority member made and i agree with that that point that the that  board or by the e u and this differs from the cases in which the the board relies where parking was different the union here never said well let's continue bargaining the union here readily agreed that they were they be now evidence that the amount offered by the employer was insufficient and the court could i think fairly include from that point that the board's determination was not based on substantial evidence and therefore be reversible w accepting the fact that the parties agreed that they were in has in enable the parties in agree that the union no longer exists the party can also read that there in past in april and after two weeks both statements  credible and can be true the fact that both parties may have discussed mileage or may have discussed anything it is not sufficient to suggest that poisons the well especially when the discussion is bilateral with us let's assume question i believe that it is a permissive subject borrowing not a mandatory subject of the problem is your honor that even if it is a permissive subject the bargaining the parties can discuss it and certainly the stipulated that now the stipulation of facts was entered into between the general council and the association eighteen months after the union went out of existence so what did you mean that now you're out  or appreciate it thank you it's true that the stipulation was entered into between the general counsel and the association prior to the hearing in front of the male j v the union well it's also not challenging anything that the that the employer filed with the board there's no argument that the that the as a matter of simple math arithmetic but that the well mathematics was done by the senate board member i don't believe that it was after taking away the one week of severance the other week the amount of back pay will be incredible only to reduce the amount of invalid and unsubstantiated mileage in other words the employer was insisting yeah i think you're overlooking the take it that it is this this offer is putting off the question of the mileage to the subsequent civil action and say that as for this amount you keep regardless of the board reasonably read that language as demanding an offset of a contingent of potential debt that the employer was hoping to recover in the future as to part for example against whom the employer has never sought a hearing person there was no separate recognition that he would receive money instead there was that language but it would be a credit only which suggests that it would would not be anything at all for someone for whom it wouldn't function as a credit and the employer if you look at their exceptions at joint appendix two seventy three they endorse that they endorse that view of a fair offer by accepting to the elders finding quote that the board's order required a minimum of two weeks of back pay but did not permit a set off against that amount debts that are is being separate from the back pay remedy itself and that's exactly what the employer insisted the impasse on doing here it is conceded that that was a permissive subject therefore it was not entitled to  floor of the two weeks back to the employee or instead believe that it would go in and try to reduce that back and reduce the sum it would actually pay these individuals to zero dollars and that is what it was not allowed to do the somehow punitive or as the closing obligations that it wasn't required to actually abide by so again but the board reasonably looked at the language of the employers offer the language of the employers on see twenty one for yourself and i think part of the confusion in this case arises from the unusual payment structure that these individuals had where they got paid in the first instance part of their salary from the union which acted as an employer and part of their salary came from the commonwealth and then the the employer reimbursed the commonwealth so for that first week from understanding it correctly what would have happened is the same payment structure continued they got the ordinary thing they would have from the commonwealth and then they also got the employer's payment which is a smaller saw and the employer then would have would have reimbursed the commonwealth so to count that as as being going to the  because there is no dispute from the employer that it was trying to offset this america there was no there was no argument challenging the board's arithmetic in this regard and so the board didn't have the opportunity this was never presented that moved in the exceptions there and in its brief the focus of the employer's argument was entirely on this idea that we're talking about mileage here mileage as a mandatory subject for abortions look at our proposals and say that they are mandatory and therefore we can insist on them to i but then the employer goes on in that same exception to say that it should have been allowed to offset whatever it was alleged was improper mileage reimbursed you know he wants to offset both right and if it's wrong about the mileage and he still proposal but i've already given you one week of your gross so a record of covering them with a more required their argument in that regard starts a joint hendrickson to eighty six and they are again they focus on the concept that this was a mandatory subject because mileage reimbursement in the abstract is perhaps a mandatory subject in