now represent close to ninety seven percent of all of the employees say there's a three percent left in what's happening here is that this is created really question is is to get in these individual case some of which involve this case about fourteen s p s but you're going to have a case coming up in about twelve hundred based upon false premises i'll go into that with you hope in the limited time i have i will give you some very significant samples of what i'm talking about but obviously we all know that if you accept are totally and completely in charge of the operation of these massive pharmacies to serve all the little officers searched the department of corrections institutions  pharmacy director which has all sorts of statutory and and actual involvement in personnel decisions i jets in the record this is primarily in disputed estell but these people do they're not therefore they're not endangered under the traditional it's just it's just a false premise with a false with total logic but false conclusion same thing with respect to stri but the same thing the same thing with respect to the supervision  who represents half speed i was planning to address the medicare ial issues and she was going to address the supervisory issue but also the term appointment issue that's in this case  cases involve assistant state's attorneys and assistant public defenders i believe this court in the c m s case really went to the heart of what those decisions are about which is that you have a unique situation where because of statute and case law the assistants in those offices have the power and you know to act as surrogates for the person in charge of the entire office the state's attorney or the public defender we don't have that here was the spirit i don't know statutory authority we're not even going to look at how those offices operate because these individuals have the statutory power to act as surrogates for these public officials as a charge of i think i think that is what the statute intended to say rider and if that guy is a supervisor or manager who is is there no one well first of all we're talking about for purposes of this sat you whether they are these individuals the supervisors or managers under the test set forth in the statute and what the board concluded is these pharmacy directors are not because they don't meet those particular test and the reason that they did did not meet the man in charge of my question if is setting forth the important policies and procedures that must be followed and all these pharmacies and these terrorists you directors do so either cook county state's attorney in my plush office on the third floor people supervisors and managers and they exercise control well they said because those particular statutes make that give them fast with the authority of the responsible for all aspects of the operation related to the first one to me there's also no statute that says pharmacy directors may act as surrogates for any particular iraq and the department of human and but he's not a manager or supervisor with the meaning of illinois favorable within the office with him that's correct and that we get to that point i mean it's some point that these definitions have to kind of make common sense sure they do but one purpose of this act is interval recognize that employers generally have a right to participate in collective bargaining  exclude those in the top lawyers those who are really a fact of plate making the policies and who are making the important decisions people like mr mouw like and mr malan there's no question that they were powerless they would have been considered policy makers these individuals the pharmacy directors and mr koch played they had some significant input into po right i think that what this court should do is recognize and the supreme court said in the two cases and the assistant public defender case chief judge and the assistant state's attorneys that they were camping out in our perception that and i think in other circumstances the supreme court would want it's consistent with the supreme court's decision to recognize that it's a narrow exception the supreme court says it should not be construed probably and i think that those decision should be a limited to cases where you have a surrogate situation which is not present facilities where there is management in the facility and then there are perform pharmacy services hundred that's under the supervision remotely of people in springfield and there are multiple layers in springfield there's attending physician might be the only one in charge in an emergency room any given time and still have the right to be in a park and you know it doesn't necessarily have to be for the labor life purposes somebody on site in charge as opposed to every day pro into this is a supervisor manager but not the way the legislature wrote this want to have very extreme marriages which is you multiple layers of these people even if they're not on site you could have a new system nursing director nursing home in charge i'm citing the only one at a time and still have the right to bargain if under private sector or if it's public sector that person doesn't meet the letter of my definition so i don't think it's necessary to have the supervision on site the evidence showed that malik centrally has these policy procedures manual you know the supreme court view that is these people are acting as officers of the court on behalf of the state and i think there is some of it i probably underlying it and you don't it wasn't intended and hasn't been found to apply to an outside i mean these are pharmacists they're professional for the record show you spend sixty percent of his time and medicare paperwork administrative duties he's not spending most of its time managing and you sitting in springfield in the same office as mellon who he reports to you and  issued a discharge when there's no showing who made the discharge decision and that it wasn't through several layers of by them and that they just grievances because one of the five at the first step you know and the court found that it wasn't shown fifty employees exercised the supervisory discretion and with respect to managerial it's a very i mean to accept admission which which applies where it hasn't been extended outside  e narrow states attorney take cases is that you have to be at the highest levels probably affecting the department's goals and and and effective implementation of and that wasn't shown here that these people are broadly engaging in ability to change the goals and develop policies and charged with implementing those policies they're charged with making sure that things run smoothly that there aren't  errors in the distribution of medication that they may have minor ability to decide how whether there's going to be a cap and a girl or what's going to be used to distribute medication outside the hours when the pharmacies aren't pharmacists are there at night so and has provision stating that they that those provisions are applicable to in reality a pharmacist operated by the department of human services that's title sixty eight section thirteen thirty  so where did the board go wrong what did they do that caused them to reach the wrong decision here in your judgment what i think the date on here is it's just very