from bargaining status relying upon section six point one the law of the state labor of that particular section of the labor act  recently new is fairly new and it was and acted to authorize the governor of the state of illinois to designate a limited number of positions in the state  accurate statement to say the positions of all by for a solution are you the upper level management positions positions that involve policymaking or positions in which the person holding that position has a confidential relationship with someone and management be some paragraph that we're dealing with his section six point one b five which qualifies a exclusion from collective bargaining in that position has the authority to my substantial and independent discretionary  l and in each of those ways the of position has to have the authority to engage an executive and management functions for a state agency when she meets that particular qualification under the first prong the position has to have the authority to be charged with the actuation of management policies and practices of a state agency under the second  policies of the state agency now when this case was litigated before the war and its decision it concluded that in many respects the position of an encumbrance shop would have the authorities of the type prescribed in section sixty five and it held that with respect to the position of a health care unit administrator the activities of a vendor who provides health care services for the state at a correctional facility the second way was the role that a health care unit administrator had apply to every correctional facility institutional directives are those that apply at a peculiar correctional facility and it's important to understand that an institutional direct in fact most of the facts in this case were not in dispute the first the first fact is there are thirty one protocol facilities in the state that each has a health care unit and each has a health care unit at ministry the role of the public care unit administrator is particular to that particular correctional facility and no the second point to understand is no aspect of the operation of a health care unit that is not touched by administrative directive or an institutional directive the third point i understand is that most of the authority of a health care unit administrators certainly has to be determination made by the labor board came from monitoring the activities of the vendor in this case the vendor is an organization  wexford was to monitor its compliance with requisite policies now it's important to understand that doesn't mean that they could make independent judgments as to whether what's good job or a bad job the second were laws and regulations which dealt with providing health care services particularly in a prison environment and the third where the administrative directives and the institutional direct have already have a health care unit administrate or was limited to reviewing the activities of wexford to make sure what it was doing comply with those particular regulations contracts and policies and they did that by preparing a monthly report now the report had six pages of instructions telling a health care unit have ministre her what she had to do in filling it out there was virtually no independent discretion that health care unit administrators had in the foss us of going out the r time help care services were actually provided by the department that was not the case at times relevant this proceeding at the health care facilities or my clients work this is the second role my clients had at least in the minds of the of the board was to recommend administrative directives now the only evidence in this writing about any promulgating institutional directives and all nothing more than a health care unit if ministre are making recommendations or sharing boss with her chain of command at the institutional level but might be a good instinct institutional directive to insert out that it's it's our view that the board got it wrong in saying those two activities rises above of all a fine in monitoring white for compliance that not involve the fact to eating any policy at most it was to make sure westward was following a policy her only role was to fill out a report provided to her chain of command she had no role or already in making any policy decisions pertaining to wexford on it in this case we feel that in considering the meaning of section six the first prong of section sixty four it is relevant to consider how courts have  decided and interpreted the manic definition of management contained in section three j of the act that the language in each section is nearly identical clear that positions at all by under that section are are those or someone has to have hands on responsibility and affecting policies it's a situation where you have to be more than an advisor or recommend or making recommendations you have to have hands on control and we cited a number of cases in our brief that speaks to that point well being as you why isn't making sure because what they are doing is nothing more than taking a look at what the department's policies are as stated in the administrative directives and the institutional directives and then sang this what works for doing that nothing but nothing that's putting into the fact you see policy i don't i don't think it's putting into effect anything i think is just measuring compliance with policy  policy in effect take some action in this case they do nothing more than submit a report which goes up to her supervisors on up the chain of command now come the way the labor board got around that limited policies are practices of the department they're merely taking some some action where a leave it as it happened that is not covered by a policy the and i i don't know any cases that has addressed that directing and effectuating are almost redundant terms i don't know that there is much difference that seems to be the dictionary definition of that term and in this case there is no policy that a health care unit have ministries or puts in place the policies are laid out to this case is that an executive or management function must the wall representing management that that would essentially mean that someone has to be fact or excuse me has to take or recommend some discretionary activity that's that's the first requirement that effectively controls or implements the policy of the state agency painted with a fairly broad brush in terms of what we already that that is required and in this case up here you know the ministry of hers have very virtually no authority with respect to administrative directives which dictates the policies of the department and the role they have with institutional directives don't affect the policies the department they affect what might happen if one correct one out of thirty one correctional this  state but the language that comes from this this particular prong came from the issue of university case the united states supreme court and that that turned it on when it was an employee is doing conventional management functions and then it went on to state that it has to be a position where there is a lot of hands on responsibility in that case it involved college faculty members who essentially control gratian of an academic unit and that's not the case here we don't have that in this what these employees do is for the banks pay when they do is they really monitor a contract that's a surly policy or direction there's a contract it's a contract for medical services and therefore they need medical trip medically trained employees are professional ois they are in fact registered nurses to make sure it's sort of a quality control situation with the contractor here which is the issue is whether that is an executive or management function and and one of the the point said asked me wanted to raise in support of what we believe should be a the petitioner is also make their point and and the way the statute is written clear of the opinion we believe that that is a correct interpretation of the actual decision as was just adopted by the war basically considers what what they believe our management authority significant and discretionary authority youngers six point one five act to be the same thing that is it's the same authority or alleged authority which kind of brings me to whether or not they actually have actual who are in the war has taken the position in this case and in the after but in this case that it that it doesn't matter whether it's actual story which we believe this not your ship is not the way the courts have the term and what that second prong is regardless of whether you are aren't engaged in the executive mansion corey the fact that there is a presumption here here the ael chief found well there's a presumption and therefore there doesn't have to be actual authority that's enough that they interpret it interpreted that the first portion is what has always been the management standard with the absence of predominant ok so there's a difference under six under the definition of manager you have to have a predominant their history or predominant duty executive management function they took that out and they find that to be the difference and they also find to be the difference the presumption or whether where the burden shifted to and that's really what other than that the board decision and even frankly the argument of respondents here is that the courts have determined what is an executive management function while what that means and also under the ship the ship has been adopted by the supreme court and here it just doesn't meet that burden the we believe that  overcome any presumption and that based on the hearing here there is no basis it's clearly erroneous that there was a determination that the activities were good afternoon your honour's so i am sure and sell assistant attorney general on behalf of both the illinois department of central management services and the illinois labor relations board and i'd like explain what six point one actually is and does and i also want to no there at this is the first time that the language of section six point one p five and then the definitions that are eleven hundred positions and there pending in the first district they were stayed pending the court's decision on a case that was decided yesterday i don't h court the first district how that six point one is constitutional is so but i can tell you that was c f s me versus c m s and the only labor relations were twenty fifteen illinois bill many petitions for review were filed filed by after me on these cases except for in this one i'm down here in the four which was the individual objectors who filed you need to ask me did not file kitchen review in this case creation and it does not modify any preexisting means of determining pardoning units itself contained it's entirely new means of decreasing the number of state employees in collective bargaining unit and so there's truth to it does border to whatever section six point one means has to be interpreted with regard to what its purpose w and this court should affirm the board's decision because the governor properly designated the a c u a positions as excluded from the collective bargaining from collective bargaining because they are managerial positions under six point one five as it's defined in section six point two so you want the board correctly interpreted c y as providing two separate tests for determining whether a physician scuse language which is which the first test modifies modifies to traditional tests found in section three j it is not the same test and there's important distinctions there and then the that's how the board got to do its separate two separate tests to permit the governor to exclude positions on which army and curio level and the point of section six one is to recapture government deficiencies and effectiveness in management there and there was when the general assembly  started to recognize that in the past few years state employees to state employment scene had become so very heavily problem with me an inch having managerial level people here and in people who were aligned with management and that's where their loyalty should be having in a bargain in units there would be  agencies that would hear of when they have somebody basically in charge at some particular location it's a lot of these agencies are complex and large operations management functions which if you've heard an argument they have is not necessary under both test so that's the first test and then the second test if i'm following your order would be represents management interests are taking are recommending discretionary actions that also the other part of the this this test is that it is the authority the question under these tests are what authority does the position give the position holder it is not departments policies with regard to the health care units that day and they are health care unit is basically certified compliance with severe weather really well what they do they they based on what's information the information that they get from the health care unit administrators in each of those for the in each facility those health care unit administrators have discretion and that's test part of this is they have significant and discretionary authority they have discretion to decide what they're going to report whether they're going to report it so they say well we report without the so whether or not what the what the vendor contract requires what these blocks think federal requires what the all of the directives which in a hospital you're going to him direct health care is complex it's expensive you know to be reinventing the wheel everywhere just because you know you're complying with directives or making sure doesn't mean that you're you know you have no authority but i think it's really important here that i mean there's two issues here the first is the test the proper test which is to alternative tests under see section three j which is the traditional managerial task this is not the act these are separate they're separate proceed proceedings and this one is to give  basis which positions are managerial level and give this needed a for a team you know the degree to which the tickler employees exercise that authority does not to come in and show that they do nothing at this board nobody's argued here today that that i mean there's been a just it's sort of band well here's what you know the test that and say well what they were executive management functions but since decision new it's a new creation it is not representation proceeding it does  governor gets to do these days the nation and the new way we teach these people would not have been designated under the directing the responsibilit because if there's no if you're not looking at how often or even whether an employee exercises some authority to some particular duty it's it's it's the a forty itself to or the point is to give rich restore managerial efficiencies and effectiveness in state government so that's why the governor's designations are presumed  be proper and it's based on the position of the positions of authority and that whether or not an employee is is exercising it but at the board that you know i mean it's a clearly erroneous standard the course the board's interpretation of the test here is correct based on the language of the statute based on the context of it which the legislature in this same public day act amended section three j to set up separate tests so you don't have to have these executive and management functions and given what the purpose of this legislation is which is again the efficiency of government which the general assembly was recognized was becoming a problem based on the heavy unionization that have occurred over the last several years so flying that test to to the evidence that's a clearly erroneous i mean that's clearly erroneous and the board's decision based on well you know they pay all of the decisions about westford whether or not they're complying with all that many many  and monitoring the vendor that's probably true but that's not enough under section six point one before to qualify for  true to the record in this case their authority actually was to determine whether an issue of noncompliance was serious to report and i would submit that's not the type of role of a health care unit administrators at a correctional facility where health care services are not actually provided by the department it's pretty limited and they don't rise to the level of but required for exclusion