and we will move to the next case it's bama construction versus the united states department of labor andrew grossman is here for more bama merissa snaith is here for the department of labor responsible employer is the one who exercises actual direction control work workers responsible pull it chooses the work goods provide their tools tells lynn where to be what to do and how to do it as a compensation talking about control how the main as opposed to the result right that's correct and here we're considering say so the most important dispute that your client took control of the safety measures and had promulgated measures that the roofers had to follow the routine cruise driving while intoxicated on the way to work you know if that's not expensive control of the complying with the safety requirements i follow the safety procedures but there's nothing in this record indicating that every independent contractor prescribes specific safety measures and then had the seminars  which he schools the independent contractor employees of i have to comply with and then enforces them and then sanction there's nothing in this record and vacating that that occurs and construction industry our american industry in general all of the independent contractor relationship the prime contractor or general contractor to exercise control just one of the one of the factors that the a l j took into consideration probably the most significant factor at least for me is the representation that sam i made to the public at the work  were its employees on its website its website provides quote we are a family owned and operating roofing contractor employing over fifty people who a share in the pride of providing top quality materials professional installation and dependable warnings for both residential and commercial roofing customers is there anything about that factor that we could say is not based has no control over its workers and no obligation to enforce worker safety but in his courts review of the l g s decision under the deferential substantial evidence test it will find that the record here tells a very different story and it does amply support the  finding of two alternative faces of liability as the l j noted these employees identify sam as their employer they denied being in business for themselves they've had a longstanding working relationship with family for ten to twenty years each they they were supported by substantial evidence but there are three that weren't supported by substantial evidence and one that is neutral nobody argues about we don't then put ourselves in the position we don't know that they would have reached the same decision but call that running so you're asking us basically to set as the as the a judge and make a review terminations without the errors and how do we know what the whole the whole idea of having the predominant amount of the decision making several exhaustive factors if the a l j determines that two of those factors the weight of those are so strong that they outweigh any factors that would support a sub he gave the last way to he didn't go down and so on a scale of one to ten this factor gets to six on a scale of one to ten this one gets to we don't know that so we could be farming even though the factors he gave the of the relationship between parties that that factor would heavily in favor of finding employment relationship he also emphasized as your honour's touched on the nearly exclusive control that exercised over the workers thinking which is really the most important issue also that the a l j got it wrong on one or two of the factors and we remanded it and sent it back this case could i mean it would come back before us on appeal and we could just keep actually on the site directing the workers and who are in control of whether workers where their safety  numbers twelve and then has a paragraph in which each wage factors one per funding and reaches a result question is do we appl