now please the court just an easy initial procedural matter the facts of this case in the next case on your god are exactly the same and you have the lawyers i do have the next case the lawyers are exactly the same they both commission that chicago bridge is the controlling precedent in this case however where i disagree with the commission is their application of the law their case to the situation the bridge stands for the proposition that all factors have to be taken into account this control which the commission however and our cases failed to even mention control when discussing the issue of employment for them are the commission throws dollars a day per diem that they work they worked eleven days math tells me and forty two times loving this four hundred sixty two dollars and they did the math without looking that's exactly what they got paid ok i'm sorry i  told them so they had it's not really reimbursement because they didn't submit anything showing that you travel a certain number of miles they were just paid right well i mean you know why you're on a ride there is no evidence of that and what they might have  the employers who were signatories to the union contract pay that paid the reimbursement for that one thing i want to point out again when we get back to the employment issue is control isn't even mentioned by the commission and even talk about the issue of control in their decision if we examine the issue it's pretty clear that there is no control existant over the workers after they were laid off they were free to go anywhere they wanted to in fact if i c chicago bridge where there's a very different situation they said in that case let me let me back up and say why it's different kind of brings to gentleman who worked exclusively for the same company for nineteen years and what happened was he would be hired for johnnie go up and do the job he'd be terminated to go home he'd be hired for another job for the same company for nineteen years and the court in that case looked through those facts and said this is the fiction that he's not an employee in fact  said that they the that he relied upon the fact that this it always worked this way before there was going to be a tough time up there and then that missing that was that was a factor we are talking about the fact that's what the union contracts asked and what about the two guys and one truck where they didn't know about that because that's what the contract is certainly a part of no not that went after they left because they saw them there in the one truck so that is something that they knew they where they went to so this isn't the first time with we went there so that kind of fits into the dictator in the carriage case because this isn't isolated incident because they've been to this place before during this calendar year other trader concluded that this is the the individuals were traveling employees and the important thing that they looked at there was not a question of control but they looked at a question for see ability and it was clear from the route that they were taken they had one more job and it's foreseeable that they're going to come from or from the location of the residence to work they're not going to go back there am i have the right case the supreme court said that if the travel is foreseeable that there should be if they did not look at the factors they're supposed to look at if you look at the commission's decision they don't mention control in there or anywhere and that indeed the most important factor when determining if someone is an employee so i want to point that out the second thing that i would like to