she normally would not be doing at that time the duty she was doing was traveling to an order training activity let's explore there for a second he was very good in this a personal vehicle to the police department that they correct that is correct that's what he normally does to the police department in the morning right normally at a different time wearing for different reasons that place your argument in orders when you tory training and he has to go to the right that's correct will work or if you actually believe that i believe that the employer put some a position that's hazardous on a different time than they're normally a calm what is the difference i mean you know who it was was it more my position isn't going to the court disagrees that the order making him come on a different day make him going out on a different day is making him a travelling employee the time it's not the normal time not the normal different time the fact that he was put into a situation which he testified that he would not have went out but for the sort of that makes a traveling play and the court obviously disagrees from from the arguments to as well yes that's correct if that time and his own are all who was involved in the same accident is that different situation is that a situation that he  this and we all disagree in this room that the fact that the different time fact they put him in this position from going home if you could face it he wouldn't put it at the plate but for this work well we don't know if we just of the way there would be compressible under your theory right if yes yes if it's a different time and they were given an order to be there and they're pulled out and the testimony shows that but for this honest and it's been it's what the cases have come down as is that little little nuanced facts here in there in each case are leading to different outcomes and the whole litany of these cases whether you're looking under the retain control or the traveling which is that mr allen vavasor alan ball was not engaged in any activities or duties and further into his employment at the time that he got this water view the facts are clear he was driving to p headquarters on at a street where he normally reported every day for his second shift two forty five pm shift every day you also brought up the example later the day the training was that he was going to report to expo gardens in peoria later in the officer testified you pulled over and was tracking a reckless with what he perceived to be a reckless driver and this stated testified that he had an intention to pursue in this you a ticket to that driver there was no evidence in this case that mr bought even if he had seen the driver that hit him that he was pulling over or had done something called into east peoria p d where the accident occurred or some other action that may have raised a level in not unique to officer allen bought there was multiple officers that were required to attend this on that day and the benefit was that they needed to keep up their licensing their certification to remain as employers police officers so there is a while there is a distinct benefit to the respondent the city for having their officers properly licensed and certified there's also a little bit of a personal benefit to officer allen bach in maintaining his own license to remain employed or to pursue him point us through of all right what presumably or on hold to be there if you're a police officer not as any other employee as is this part right the court pointed out you have to show up for your normal shift if you have to call in because of illness or because you left take a vacation day those are options also but you're still required if you don't show up in the in officer sorry now police chief mitchell testified at arbitration that if alan ball had shown up to the training he would have been disciplined similarly because if he hadn't up to his normal work shift without have providing a valid this case in this case or there's there's merit in him traveling because the city gets the benefit of the employee showing up to work but that's the case for any employer in terms of for a travelling lawyer someone that's employed that were employers retain control over them beyond when they go to and from what is the distinction whether he is traveling from his home to recoup lose one versus he has been ordered to go somewhere other than   department issued vehicle for purposes of that training and again that goes back to the position where this is this is extraordinarily fact specific and unfortunately for mr allen bought city pure does not believe that fact support their position in this case we believe that the commission correctly decided this we believe that there was not was not the respond not retain sufficient control over the petitioner at the very briefly and since this is recorded on make sure that if you don't think i'm completely off of off base here arbitrator agree with me when the commissioners agree with me dissented in the decision what i'm asking you to do has some merit when you talk and ask questions of counsel about the normal shift my position this wasn't the normal ship this was something different same place by the set of facts he's going to the same building by chance that he was going to