employee under the act the first thing is what you must perform work that is substantially different from that of his or her support the ministry of there's a there's a finding we really don't think perform all these functions and in in that case in this case that is that is the essence of this case they actually do perform those function s in these three regions and more specifically as set forth on page twenty one of the hearing transcript in in generally describing their work the stated that they have the responsibility to ensure that all the environmental health responsibilities of their region and those counties and local health department contained within it complete that mission dish and again on page twenty one line sixteen through twenty three they have the responsibility is above and beyond the local but separate and distinct somewhat from the central office so it is only up to the regional supervisor to ensure hoped the work gets done that includes supervising these individuals under their direction provision within the regional office of the environmental personnel plus when and if necessary to actually go out and  presented there and an individual basis at some point i hope to be able to bring that issue to your attention has been frustrated by  it being serious in responding i think that that that majority opinion actually is contrary to meat for reporters c they're part of a team of specialized professional technical and certified employees as we discussed for an organizational terms they report to ken rogoff who is the vision chief who reports that they've  supervisor something everybody thinks they know what that word means and they throw it around but within the meaning of the act it is a very specific function any event being the state argues that these employees within the meaning of the act supervisory authority to direct primarily because they grant time off and can do evaluations you know you asians are not an independent indicator of supervisory authority and of the statu exercise independent judgment and the ability to actually effect the terms and conditions of the putative subordinate well if these regional supervisors are the ones from area with these individuals support so they work together it's really sort of a if it's a tool in management that really isn't like a disciplinary type tool it's supposed to be a discussion mutual so going back and forth you know how can you be doing this better should subject there's nothing discretionary about you did so many inspections you didn't have some say so he's reporting up the chain of command that monday went through this process and through you know these are the objective provided it's done with independent judgment so all of those things can be rote routine are professionally required but obviously they are also can require discretion and it depends on the circumstance so if i  choose between three people who got hired i think it's best that that's an independent judgment that's not being forced on me any if i can i'm telling me that you know you go home you know i don't think you're right you know behaving employee out of the benefits of the at the burden is on that party to demonstrate why they shouldn't get the benefits of the act if the party hasn't demonstrated it you know i don't have well it's assumed the employees they're professionals they have a job to do they have to account for what they do it's it's it's review their accounting this review that you know i think the state gets its money and they need somebody you know alone w honor just to answer justice cook's question earlier i think that's an important point that i don't want to see get lost the idea is there may not be a statutory supervisor each of the seven regional offices but that doesn't mean there isn't someone district and they talk about the concern where you have somebody who's basically a supervisor and people who are employed and they're in you're in the boat in the game and then they say that's a problem well it's only a problem if someone objects to it i mean our statue allows unions of us of supervisors so even that's a possibility the question really is whether the employees who are petitioning fall inside section three are and there's a lot of know the language that they use the murdoch exclusion of supervisory employees from bargaining units ensures employers that pro union bias well not impair the supervisors ability to apply the employer's policies t the supervisory functions that are listed in section three are one of which by the way is not a value so much and i think that the simplest question to ask is do these employees that are before the court the two ever time off and that's because c m s provides very concrete specific rules for granting time off and the supervisors follow those rules so when they do that they're not actually doing anything statutory that would trigger th preponderance of time of any of the three employees here is spent doing any of these eleven in addition i don't think that can be done and so i think this case could be fairly quickly settled arks decided we can argue about whether those his mind these are people who supervised the people that are under and i don't have a problem with that he testified truthfully but there is a difference between what a layperson might say a supervisor is and these people are also quite right they're called regional supervis the question for the court is whether there are regional supervisor functions trigger this particular statutory and that's that's the place where the players typically don't meet their burden and i want to emphasize that point to it is when it says it's a collaborative record they work together out of a wish and if they only get involved when there's a red flag or something that every question about their state testimony but otherwise there is never talked to