first time even for a year year and a half delay that i have had and i retreated this side that it's even if it's on timely i don't care because he didn't cause any harm to the employee as a matter of fact felt that a premium pay cannot be factored into zero or a reduction in pay argument and other words the the fact that you can't get overtime doesn't mean that there was actually a penalty yes but because the lady was so long i mean i understand that that is the argument she was not allowed to work that over time if this would have been decided when mr confidence in his ability to operate within the building where the cells understood that everything but my point your honor is that it doesn't make sense to fight him  guilty or find him sustain the charge that he was an eye threat to the institution or to the safety and using that argument to germinate him when he was bad for three years she was in that is correct but there is the fact that he the way that he splays is you know a place where all the correctional officers are going to the training center so he had at that school in front of that training center all the saw that he was on the other hand the fact that he was listening to all these phone conversations i understand it's our procedure and that he was exposed to have information from  it is only a consequence is there is a demonstration of prejudice and for example in the cornelius versus hunt one of the procedural violations that was alleged was a writers your honor respectfully they made no argument of prejudice to the order traitor and the arbitrator made the finding of fact in his decision that there was no assertion of any prejudice before the arbitrator in front of him with regard to mr riehl warden pierce's testimony was was different he testified that in november of two thousand and fourteen there was a meeting between warden about recounting the test usually deciding for sure yes he's the deciding official and he had this meeting in november of two thousand and fourteen where he's told by the warden babcock that he has a terminations manner or potential termination also testified that when he comes on the job in january of two thousand and fifteen and before the the official notice of proposed removal goes out under the signature  captain for who is the department head he's two levels above mr keller real peers points out that he was told by the captain that he was sending out decision of warden pierce who of course could either adopt the captain's for interview or totally disagree with the captain as to the charges or the just sometime now there was initially questions about the time frame i did want to address that with a little bit more specificity so i could explain to the court how this time frame evolved initially the report misconduct is made by and invade it comes into the bureau of prisons and when something like that comes in it goes to first of all the bureau of prisons department of internal affairs and that was done on the referral to internal affairs and standards center six two thousand and twelve it takes about a month to go from internal affairs then to the office of inspector general and it only goes to the office of inspector general because there's possible criminal activity on the part of the officer and that's why it goes to the on this of inspector general now once it gets to the office of inspector general they take seven months to conduct their investigation the summary of investigation is in our appendix and what it points out is the number of people and the individuals interviewed the people that they tried to interview that were refused to give interviews the subpoenas to all the telephone companies that then had to be responded to and these phone records come back and they show there from his cell phone they showed every single call on the cell phone they show when the time the time of the call when it started when the call and it duration of the call and then they had to go through those calls that's three hundred scuse me before i get to the next period what the collective bargaining agreement says is that you may not propose any discipline at all well an investigation and i had spoken out on his life right after that there is an extensive review period the report of the i g doesn't tell you what charges to bring somebody has to analyze it and decide so when it's analyzing it and the captain it's the captain's responsibility to analyze charges are so it takes time for the captain to go through this report i will point out that the oh i jus reported years scuse me three years  that when he got to the job in january two thousand and fifteen and before the proposal was issued by the captain in july of two thousand and fifteen at some point the captain told him what he was going to do and then the proposal comes out but to to explain what pierce talked about the internal review process the captain it's his responsibility to make the charges he makes the charges out of all of the human resource manager and the captain that captain has to work with that human resource manager and come up with a post with him that the captain sat on this for three years and never recommended to either of the the proposal decision whatever decision is being contemplated has to go to the regional office of the human resources financial it goes to the national office of the human resources branch and eventually the  decision goes out in terms of there's been the showing of any any prejudice it was never a request for these other individuals to testify and what is required under cornelius versus not is a demonstration of prejudice and there was no such demonstration before the arbitrator i would just want to say a few words about the nature of the wrongdoing in this case when mr geller real finally admitted that he engaged in this misconduct after denying it under oath to the office of inspector general and then he finally admitted it after hearing the testimony to this in his testimony was the reason we have these rules in the prisons is because we don't want correctional officers manipulated by inmates and the ironic thing in this case is that when mr bill real finally told the truth to the arbitrator what he said was his excuse was that i made these telephone calls and i made them because at houston  inmates sometimes don't get appropriate medical treatment and the inmates wanted me to call their friends and relatives and let them know that they needed medical treatment and that their relatives better come out and this at them well what that shows ironically is that this officer was susceptible to the very dangerous that the world was concerned about he was susceptible to being manipulated by the inmates and violating prison rules and regulations you know again in regards to what the agency's counsel has argued before you actually have we are getting our brief but i want to bring to your attention that that no time has the agency s the captain wants recommended something minor and then later record recommended something under different margins and agency has not shown that why that happened and the problem is that the people who we didn't they do say they did not produce the money they get they never produce the employees only when the person benefits them and i had a recent case in miami that there was a retired warden and they brought the warden from everything was said and done the persons that were dealing with the employee either in that period of time were different when the facts took place where we hired but they were the people that had the day to day new direction and knew the employee