and union and then we have an attorney general and have you two decided you've got fifteen minutes to share if you decide and how you're going to split that up ok and i will wait until they've completed dad their fifteen minutes and then you will have a nice much time to respond as we think it's appropriate for you to have to respond out of your original fifty  no that's fine well that's fine but you know this panel pretty well i think that we don't pay much attention to the time limits depending on the questions that you were brought up by the members of the panel i've never used the lights i don't even know how to use the lights we usually keep going until we're satisfied that we've picked your brains for as much information as possible and we kind of look restless ok i think you can safely assume that we've read your pre who gets awarded the case well while we all hold off a bit applying the standard to the specific acts here without spending a little time for it status quo during bargain or no but when the definition of status quo whatever the facts are oh well what is it in the abstract what is the status quo as you see we know require the full implementation of the fianna case yes so in other words are if something is not included in the previous collective bargaining agreement and i that point standards of review may very well take over where we would be crying the credibility interpretation or are necessarily getting live the interpretation given by that there is no such case it says that they are powerless in this case is going to say if we go along with the union in the state and now i notice the attorney general hasn't said anything the union rep business shaking her head you're going to get your chance believe me it seems to me that we have to start there we are talking about a policy of seniority for the filling of vacancies in shops involving one of our coworkers who are now for the first time being represented in the l puts us into a second a rino which is seems to me would be a more difficult one in which i'm not saying you wouldn't prevail but it's far more difficult one because of them we have to determine whether there is any sense at important is it for us to get there and i seriously wanted to see if you have anything to add to that question asked to whether a sta he's really would only be applicable then going forward to the individual who is on who's who is for whom the remedies are being installed here going forward it wouldn't be a  with the superintendent made a recommendation that you know the ira for that job yeah he's been against the district fish to establish the second i'm up what is needed under the fourteen a sustained they're not if you're related i mean you could find that there was no status all here with respect to the seniority issue but you could also find there was animist point this particular individual for which under fourteen a happens to those actual findings i have a problem with the evidence that was introduced with respect to allegedly introduced with respect to the evidence of animus but we'll get to that later it's more appropriate question for the attorney general in the union rather than for you record to establish a status quo all for the principle back when reducing one replacing a twelve month person ok there's a vacancy for a twelve months w based on three incidents over a period of less than two years ok yes what complicates it in my mind is not that they found status quo based on just three incidents but that they found it before you see that you have a case that says that superintendents and principals can create policy void for the board before the board acts by their actions  that was that seniority was the only factor and the guidance up as these three individuals estimate who would be assigned a twelve months which is very different that was going to be hired to a policy that when we still or hire someone for a replacement that that policy is that the most senior gets that was again i  stone let's look at a case that describes what stance is and it it describes considering a number of factors including the evaluation of past history yes any past bargaining practice existing but appoints up to people with seniority to those spots with bad other married clearly determine the preexistence of a status quo  at all in the congress of the status quo it seems to be a flowing concept that you simply randomly assign to any position ever taken in any specific case i report educational labor relations board has now mandated that that's enough if we sign off on the i p l r eight pin ok then we are in effect saying that this particular set of circumstances th situation and poised for a toll that they were going to get an increase after three years and although it might be said cetera they were told that they were given that information and then and did but they take the expectation that even though three were going to be made at ten and a half months they have the expectation that should a big and see in one of those positions occur that the only person who would senior if it gets your curse we're going to take the most senior person and put the nothing at all kate i don't know how you leap from a position or possibly if you want to call it that of the multiple people that are going to be reduced from twelve to ten and a half that those in the three positions that are going to remain at twelve that from this position we did go to an expectation that if something happens where one of those people is no longer going to be in that position that when we hire or we replace what we put someone in that position that it will all be the person who is most senior i'm trying to get to them and that's my only way to get to that is this way there's three people too because we've been kind of beating up on the board they should have an opportunity to respond it's their order with opinion status whether there be a formal word provable and the answer is no and where you were looking with what is the status quo where did we look for that i think the correct direction it goes along with a practice within the disc yes and that practice is neither commented on or or revoked by the board they can a little over a period of time rules clearly enunciated the fact that it's the board policy at least before the union started barking that it was the board policy that seniority was only a factor and the district praised dictation labor relations board is now the status quo is seniority trumps everything else and there's no way we should try to read that they go beyond and that's simply created by a pronounced in other words happens to the three jobs open in this particular office i think you expect a much broader ramification and implication what we do and that we have a problem now because you say that he even the principal or the one of them said that when there's a vacancy this is the policy that we're going because when you said that there was a statement that when there is a vacancy  is that the reason that they didn't give her the job was because of her union activity that has to be inferred from what i want to try to determine i get an see others i mean what does it mean when somebody says because of what you wish for i we supposed to interpret that as something that it was in somehow because i've looked at the record in the context in which that statement was made and for the life of me  the statement is a part of the evidence establishing the form formulation of policy were we were to have to conclude that is a more progressive view that says that even though a truck driver isn't authorized to make admissions on behalf of the trucking nevertheless since he drives a truck he can sta back i'm stating that because i promised the m administration perhaps considered to consider this young lady to be troublesome quote unquote before he even became me and maybe what they were referring to was her past behavior you know you have that rather then her behavior