therefore is the only one that maybe he's filed the petition to i don't know either today possible everyone else fails but to get to the point on this this case really is about premise you wind up with a faulty or incorrect conclusion similarly here if the board starts with an incorrect practice eight clearly  where i hope you carry back the presage to your colleagues that they're performing the service of this court we don't like it we expect the people who are especially experienced people who are i don't think he was intending to violate the supreme court going back to the substance of it so so you can help on that on to another ma or you may be a mops and not exercise ory but if you have that authority you should be shrewd or you may be a fabulous administrator and not have the subsidies to discipline people supervisory stance in particular i believe there was too much emphasis placed on the fact that the section managers were not solely responsible for the employment actions taken concerning th during these requirements are being conjunct to sort of alter the ball in this case we don't even need to get to that point because it's what leaders all they were doing they were not making policy at all they were doing was translating the policy into common english for seven days of hearings in zero seven and zero eight regarding the denial of the hearing for the ninety one employees i think it's important to remember that the question for you there are inclusion in the existing r c sixty two you know this for over five hundred people revenue p s a tears and those went on for five days and at the end of the hearing they ok realize that a lot for a lot of these people they weren't coming anywhere near to meeting the criteria for exclusion so she asked c m s to submit supplemental offers of proof that went to greater detail about what c m s planned to show because in her opinion it had been in complete involving only certain of the of the p s a to the initial offer about whether they should be excluded and those were scheduled for additional days of hearing but then she found that regarding the other ninety one that there really weren't reasonable questions about whether or not they should be excluded from the union so those were the ones that were contemplates exactly this procedure and section nine eight of the act the board's instructed to consider the evidence gathered prior to a hearing being held and determine whether it's sufficient enough you know that these people really don't belong in the union or they can grant representation request as they did here and  choose that we're not schedule for a hearing c m s doesn't talk about any of those individual determinations about the particular circumstances that apply to those employees what their jobs are what their duties are  so there's no way to respond to that they're just sort of making an overall argument that we're entitled to a hearing in every case and we know that that's not the case under the law they made no attempt to say you know mary smith the signs were joe smith but they cite no authority for that and the legislature has determined what the standard should be and has put it right and that it's whether there's reasonable cause to believe that a question of representation exists that's the standard that the board applied one that she thought that all supervisors really us exclusion people should have that sort of from the unit the ones that were given a hearing and the ones that weren't should have been allowed to carry and her reasoning was that the majority placed too much emphasis on the on the point that these people consult with their supervisors and not take in some of these actions that are supposedly in the show of authority but she's wrong here because one of the things you look at is it's my impression that there is some reference in these findings about where we're just first consulted with his supervisor before taking the section  there a supervisor there was nothing about john smith supervisor having to really do more whatever and it just seems to me if that were the standard you know officers in the supervisor position it depends again how much for instance it's in these cases that the supervisors supervisors independently with regard to the employees so that there would be ever be discipline impose week and say they may have a pretty effective form of retirees equals one reprimand and hand that hand that out that doesn't make them a supervisor they have because there's no conflict with the union that's the rule this guy's job is to apply the rule comprehensive as well i miss him and just well i think your supervisors because it seems to me that you can't just say that because they make recommendations that that because they're making recommendations somebody says that that doesn't supervisors bosses know whatever reason that it was something that would indicate that the authority above is not just the radical form it's active you have corey realize resides s immediate appointees the people who in the words of this court you know really run the show and that's what the legislature intended to achieve when they put in the union exclusion