parties was whether or not overtime should or should not be included there was never an issue about the time frame in which the average weekly wage should be calculated as you could see on the step sheet that was submitted i think in the didn't mean that both of you were agreeing that only eight weeks of work should be counted yes your honor and that is evidence and i'll show you exactly how or if you will get the figure that the respondent put down for the amount of earnings the record doesn't reflect copy that was made by the average trader if you wrote to the record which was petitioners exhibit number two that was the shortened version of the time sheet from story systems if you add up the number of regular span works you'll see that the total amount of hours worked is two hundred forty six hours regular time multiply two hundred forty six by two five point eight five his race that will give you a grand total of six thousand three fifty nine ten ok which if you take that figure and look to the step sheet is six thousand three fifty nine points ten so that's where that number comes from yes or so there was an agreement by myself in the word representing  systems that their time in which we were going to put in for the average weekly wage was thirty eight weeks of work that this gentleman worked for story systems because of the nature of the employment for a pile driver they'll work at several different employers as a matter of fact mr gray prior to this it worked at somewhere between a half dozen to a dozen other pile driving companies so rather than going through and getting subpoenas to all the other places that he worked throughout the years to figure out how many hours you work we stipulated with look at the last eight weeks decide how many hours he worked for the last eight weeks for this job for this employer because it was easily ascertainable and that would be the basis of the average weekly wage the sole issue for the arbitrator to decide objection was to relevance that there is no relevance to the preview in their dejection at any point did you say wait a minute we've stipulated to only eight weeks so i jack to any evidence about any other weeks of work if you look at page one forty two of petitioners exhibit two going into evidence really the only dates that are of issue should be the dates on respondents too sick as it should have been you didn't say we found the stupid sheets and even then only we've stipulated to only eight weeks i'll basis for that is there was a stipulation between myself and the response council where i did not put into evidence any earnings other than that in which there was a stipulation not so with bigness bringing us within the purview of the statute which certain amount of weeks where a person works a regular job and that would be which i believe it's four but i don't know exactly where you are what numbers you're looking at which case well it isn't you're argument is that that the question should only looked at this job at the b p point practice guys if you need worker he gets called out of the union hall for various jobs and what they did was they went back and picked up a job in mark where he worked for one week at some other location or what it were he could work for five other employers that same week instead of being twenty hours at work he works sixty eight we treated him as if he was a permanent employee who worked for them all here that's what you're exactly right exactly and because of the situation the evidence that i submitted was no stipulation but you're saying they shouldn't pick up those previous weeks because you know it should have only been the b p job because he worked it job for less than a year correct ok that's true however though i would say that if there was a stipulation only reason that i didn't answer that question is because i didn't know which numbers were which so i didn't want to say door number three in a feed their own door so essential yes true and more if you didn't have the stipulation would you presented evidence as to what was made during the month of november when this your point was the same or what is the problem with consumerism i don't know whose three or four weeks whatever it was but however many days it was that your ploy were for the same order in november since the accident itself or the time frame the you agreed to start in the soup and you want to know the factual problem or the legal problem because there's two different ones the legal problem is though the legal problem and it's based on two different things one is that it ministry of questions in dispute in the case and what there are often goes on to say is that essentially the arbitrator in the commission does not have the authority to do anything other than that which is agreed by the part so from a legal standpoint i would say what you asked begins or would be no or that you can't work back at those other weeks from a legal standpoint because of the stipulation now if we take it the stipulation out of the realm we look at it from a standpoint bashfully is there a factual problem with that and the answer is yes because there was not full time employment and if you look at a small section of a job that he had at one week there's no evidence in the case as to what else he was doing that week there's no evidence as to what employers other than swear the systems he would have been working with at that same concurrent time frame and because this was a hire for a certain job it gives you a sensually the basis of a full time is all the time that he worked for story system but now we can get any other employment from any of the other contractors that he worked with the half dozen to a dozen other contractors and said we're going to decide is every week we wage based on a temporary head and then based on the more permanent fix job that he had at the b p project and the problem with that is it's not the same nature of work you're looking at a small temp job in trying to add that up and saying well since you only wor taken and used for the average weekly wage there wasn't a single shred of evidence for testimony from anybody that mr grady worked at that time frame what he performed on those dates and what the nature of the work was whether he worked anywhere else whether whether that in fact wasn't true it is true employment during the time of the job which actually south shore high school come later with there's a third party case going on so we learn an awful lot more about other stuff you say your client was moving the union ladder yes he was up is that was your advice to record or is that just in the brewery i think that the fact of the matter is if you just look at the nature of his employment that he testified that he was in his apprenticeship program and knowing the nature of an apprenticeship program you move up the ladder of an apprenticeship merely by putting the time and the more the higher up of an apprentice you are the more seniority you get you become a journeyman the better job you get and i think the additional part of it is he actually got fired on his peepee job which was a terrific job they had as a pile driver because it's steady work in the winter months that was a job it started to sour that went all the way notation on the side of the sheet that says it so you're not here to agree or admit that there was a stipulation that only eight weeks should be considered correct all i see is the same thing that you see that says for eight weeks of work and since there is no evidence brief there's a section of a question answer and some objection kind of stuff that reads your honor if i could just take the difference between one and petitioners exhibit two and then respon three years there was a bunch of payments from other projects for teachers exhibit two is just for this project because that t t d rate that's going to be asserted would have been just two weeks in parts of the employment for which he was injured respon she agrees with that i think this is as close as i can come to an agreement from the defendant but also then questions about where mr grady had worked prior to this particular incident and the answer  because you know you have five different hearings every day and it's rush rush rush and you're waiting and waiting waiting waiting and actually in this one we waited five hours to be heard and by the time you're heard it's you know get it over with go go go don't ask