clarify something i thought that the board relied on several grounds one of them which it said all by itself was sufficient had not to do with the transcript but with the agency decision which was never submit that was another one let me let me make the distinction the reds when they do an acknowledgment letter that knowledge mut letter so what they did was in its desire to dismissed on procedural grounds that's exactly what they did is to their advantage to dismiss cases on precinct grounds so rather than looking at th found that the performance improvement plan had not been properly conducted that the bargaining unit employee heads sought training and had been rejected  to fifteen times the requests for training had been rejected all we as the board to do was look at the findings apply the proper law knowing th inconsistent instructions as to what should be done so we said all we want to do is apply the law here that's what we need you to do we don't need you to look at anything else and they never did ask for the agency's decision which meant nothing after we go to binding arbitration because what our contract says what the collective bargaining agreement says is what happens after the fifteen years of government employment you've got a decision by an arbitrator that says the pip was wrongly conducted and i'm going to deny the grievance anyway findings when we thought went wrong was his application are a lack of application of the law we said had he properly applied the law there is no way he could have denied  that over fifteen or twenty years of her of her experience the board never actually requires submission or often doesn't require submission of the agency decision so i want to ask you what can you say about that of the she she also i think offered a kind of here's why that's that occurs which is that the agency decision is more or less or even completely superceded by the arbitrators can you address require that but one possible reason why that city is necessary is even though the boards are referring reviewing the arbitration decision just to know the basis of the agency's action and the facts that the agency sa are underlying the action it makes sense of that document would be required because you can't just go based on what the arbitrator said if the board's reviewing the decision it could decide that their retreat was wrong or it misstated fac or did responds to this clerk's letter but chose not to offer any argument for why she wasn't submitting the agency decision or even mention that she just submit a list of corrections to justification based exceptions i cannot quite tell from the from the board's final order there's there's a language of that it be mandatory and it precludes the board on the other hand that follows a sentence in which  the transcript the board dismissed the case because of the failure to submit the agency decision and also mentioned that there also did not submit any other evidence or argument that would enable her to overcome the deferen mr jenkins made the comment in a call over the years of her experience she never filed the agency decision when appealing an arbitrator's decision is not raised any identified any cases where ford has not followed its regulations so i'm not really able to respond to that in the absence of any offerings of cases where the party didn't follow it it's a regulation as far as i'm aware in all cases unless some sort of reason is given for waiving those requirements so you're familiar with other cases which the court applied this will i don't have any specific sites for you but i am aware that it is the practice of the board follow recording of the hearing in the clerk's letter of every right twenty of the clerk gave petitioner additional time to supplement her petition for review with any of these required documents after notifying her of the requirements and as i mentioned she responded to the letter but made no attempt to file the agency decision or anything else so because it's mandatory document was not filed the word properly dismissed the petition for  review and as i already mentioned the were also made a secondary finding that her failure to submit any other evidence including the transcript would render her unable to overcome the deference to the arbitrator's findings the board's review of arbitrations is limited and there's a higher standard of deference to an arbitrator's findings of fact than there are to just a typical a pete straight appeal of an agency action because to to pursue her grievance through the grievance process rather than directly appealing it to the board see opted to follow the increased deference standard of review that the board  an arbitrator's decision and she could have opted to just directly appeal the agency's action and then the board would have had more leeway in reviewing that decision missler was one thing that sort of struck me as a little bit odd here of the aborts opinion is that there is no discussion at all of the merits or there's no discussion at all about why the absence of these documents o leaves the board on able to overcome the deference of the arbitrator's decision and i wonder why the board didn't at least make an effort to say you know you didn't follow the rule you didn't submit the agency decision you didn't show cause why the transcript was late so we're not going to consider that and you haven't given us anything else and he'll raise the following six issues all of which to they didn't they didn't dismiss for lack of jurisdiction they certainly have the case before them they have the power to decide and i don't know anything about the merits of the case but i can imagine a ca where the issue that's a board has to decide really it's not dependent upon anything that's either in the well the procedure requirements for obtaining appeal are sort of a threshold issue for the board to even consider the merits of the case so if the board finds that those aren't met then it cannot into the kit they're not reviewing the case so that's why there wasn't any discussion of the actual underlying merits it would actually be improper for the board to attempt a review of a case where the requirements for review have not been met and to start talking about you know opinions about the decision and the board around it and the requirements for it to review the decision were not met so it was a that's a that's a general practitioner of requirements namely the one fifty five d plus or as modified by the good cause because had been offered it's conceivable that the board would have considered whether to waive the requirements but as far as discussing the merits i think it would be improper for the board to discuss the merits when it's already found that it ha if one fails to follow the rule does that eliminate feel sorry of the board to decide nonetheless if the case before them is such that they these findings are what we ask for is what we look for is what we tried the case for to find that the pit was not properly a conductor he made those agency decision well that's not true the letter of february twentieth twenty fifteen is just an acknowledgement letter that is almost generated automatically what has always happened with us with everyone i know who is planets townsell if an individual is going before the board and there has been no arbitration decision and they are contesting the agency's decision to remove them to give them a fourteen day suspension if they are going directly to that agency decision was only germane if you were going directly to the board from the agency decision point by arbitration then then go back look at their proposal that decision to remove that person and say oh well we want to go with the removal now they've only got to review what the proper trader