services third serve thirty five days from service of an order is the time period within which column wishes to file an appeal to a labor board decision with respect to certification issues in this case apparently that was issued on november tenth two thousand and eight in order by the executive director of the labor board mr john brosnan and it was allegedly mailed from the only way to relations for springfield office to the parties on bad day we have no knowledge of the proper addressing we do know though that i met personally with the executive director of the labor board of the chicago office during a break in a hearing that is moss and i were involved in another  and if it's to be an issue don't put it up front at the reception desk the conclusion of the hearing that day left the hearing room down the elevators without going by the reception desk next week nov nineteenth we resume the know at that time that it had in fact been issued any particular time but i did go on go back to the board for a hearing next week and they then gave me an envelope with the order in it  reflects that there was a certificate of service issued on november tenth with the november tenth order and that was filed by the state labor board it's just it was never received by me or the village of rose up but the getting one this dated november thirteenth now november tenth so by getting the november thirteenth order i have no reason to believe that the order he didn't get should previous to that date as he exhibited director had indicated he thought it had already been office in naperville to this course clerk's office received by the clerk sign provided for the return receipt sent back to our office indicating it was received here on november nineteen through the certificate of service the fifth document does not state that specifically no it was the certificate services signed by a mad rush with my office on the eighteenth and was received by this court on the ni if the nov nineteenth is the date of the order being served upon me which we believe that is the correct date then clearly we are within thirty five days of that date when it is received by the clerk on december nineteenth thirty days later not thirty five days later so we don't even get to this ar door i would have come back through the reception area and it would have been there yes presumably it would have been there by the time i left i don't know if it was there or whether they did it to me when i showed up the next day i'm assuming it was  not and this is a single order which is really different you know me and some there's a minor differences in the language the union description is the same but it's got a change of november thirteenth and it's not signed by the executive director of the november tenth one sign there is also a tally on the phone and a couple of other documents with the certification of representation show that on november tenth they mailed to my office the november tenth order so presumably under the rules twelve hundred thirty c we would have received it by the thirteenth unless we rebut that  pretty in actuality the time period had to begin from november third she wondered either reference to the november tenth document which was made to him on the tenth and incidentally last page of the record provides the evidence of when november thirteen on the top which suggests to me that it must have been printed on that tape someone having access to it the wrong file on the boards computers because my next question is did the one hundred first first which is do we there is a position that should be insured however if one were to look at the record and you would find precisely that there are references even the collective bargaining agreement just such a position specifically i would note that the collective bargaining scale in the collective bargaining agreement goes only as high as lieutenant and that is you do a show for two which is page thirty four of the collective bargaining agreement appendix b specifically here's a note that lieutenant position unit is the appropriate unit for purposes of bargaining you would find they at we would leave a group of current shift commanders and representative because they are not lieutenants the employers position in this case all along has completely inconsistent and it appears to me that the only purpose in arguing that there should only be lieutenants in this particular instance is to take those individuals the shift commanders and remove them from their ship commander position back down to lieutenant and pay them a lower sale or even they're currently receiving the sailor that appears in the existing bargaining in a collective bargaining agreement i just want to know one other thing in the it is with respect to position because the position was created after the reorganization of the department which created the deputy chief position and if one were to look at the job  lieutenant the job description was in fact created back in one nine hundred ninety seven before the reorganization and before the union even represented the the current bargaining unit before the certification caesar zero six three of the record it was created in february of two thousand and one again to tend to position it so you know five nine was february of one nine hundred ninety seven the reality is that after the deputy chief position was to look at the email i've referenced and what the employer is asking this court to do and now find a completely different burgeoning unit the day after to certify applied the administrative law judge based on the record that was developed in the ability to designate three of the company officers lieutenants as supervisors under section three are in the designation that the labor states should pass is shipped commander that's what's been used because that's was in the with facts that were you know was presumed into this core and the court had clearly inappropriate standards that they used and it seemed to be against th respect the certification of the labor board's bargaining of the hurdle is overcome when you look at what the poor the act and the rules provide for bargaining units who can be who has to be excluded from bargaining units you can't have supervisors and not supervisors in the bargaining unit and the board in section three are designated commander as a supervisor position and commander and we use the title shift commander but the important issue here is the rank itself and it is fire in the senate i argue unsuccessfully clearly bad if you are going to put in anything related to a shift commander you need to use the job title which is fire lieutenant parin in the capacity as ship commander close perenna that is what the labor board was required to do under its own rules excluded from bargaining in the first place is because we did not have that rank between the senate and chief under the board section three are ok this is something that's very unusual small apartments operational purposes and this is well be on the record but usually in boxing our system stays on always like twelve under fire and they go in each other on a daily basis as well as in the in the event of an emergency last month i was one of the initial we called ourselves very officers they called us then my reputation is at stake here i don't lightly come in and say i didn't get it when john indicated to me on the thirteenth of november that he thought of an issue i guarantee you that i didn't check the mail in my office for that border and was looking for it until i went back to the border on the nineteenth and found in order that