christians are he had to have a current west virginia miners license had to undergo two days safety training in west virginia and he had to fill out the employment paperwork in west virginia in this case agreement the union contract is not complete does not make an employment contract between the parties that was followed again in u s steel by the appellate court so basically a union contract is not  manual but there was no evidence that there was an actual interview but there was there was evidence to the fact that he would have to show that he had done all of these condition precedent before he would be allowed to work he had to give somebody federal elections are he had to take the west virginia mining test first and foremost and past that and so that's probably all done in the h r department now is there an actual interview breaks it down to meet someone i don't know it's on the paper there was no chance of that man going back to illinois because his factory closed as well and both of those people have all rights stemming from a union contract and the supreme court and this board itself has said this does not create an employment contract so it you know even if you move beyond it and you look at what the last acts necessary to validate the contract but deal with when you're looking at an out of state contract clearly the last four things that have to be done for mr gannon is to be an employee all occurred in west virginia i mean we've had case law that came out of the appellate court saying if you just have to go and sign your paperwork before you start or you just have to go to this other state to get the job those were last acts necessary validate the contract in this case we have the those was we have zero by the way you need to take a west virginia mining test and pass it and oh by the way you also need to undergo this two day safety training because we're not going to let you in the mine we can't let you in the mine under virginia state law west virginia state law without so the last acts all occurred in west virginia and if you look at the facts and youngstown if you look at the facts in  made sense because there was an actual acceptance on the phone which there wasn't in this case even though the commission said it was but if chicago right there was was the gentleman was being paid to drive to minnesota for the job when he had the accidents we was already on the payroll was they were going to pay him for four hours of work whether he had a job there or not so those those facts don't even come close to what the other facts and sp that down regarding jurisdiction cases and so i really don't understand why they would have relied on that instead of what is clearly the law in illinois and the most recent case came down in jurisdiction which was the that was the united airlines case where the guy worked in illinois he transferred to florida the parties all agreed he was not laid off it was a voluntary transfer he worked one day in illinois and the next day he was working in florida and in that case they did find there was a binding contract you know why because the contract had never been broken those are not the same facts that we have in this case or the other ones that i've mentioned and for these reasons we are asking this court to find that commission decision is wrong as a matter of  forty seven there is my cross examination basically i spent some time trying to can mr hudson down as to whether there is a distinction between in his mind laid o if you there is no difference if you're a laid off white and you're a terminated well i think that's a distinction that when you look at the contract itself can i cannot now one of the white you're on of that you're making because i think them along any case is something that is a case that needs to be consulted here true and the only there was continuous uninterrupted employment with united concluded however that a new contract of employment was formed in indiana following the termination of employment relationship in illinois in other words that employee that claimed it had to go over to indiana  new interview and it was clear from the context of the opinion in youngstown that at the end the employee employer or with the sight of employment could have rejected that employee as particular employment for control i'm saying youngstown not only is not controlling but for the very reasons set out by the supreme court in malone it doesn't have anything to do with this case and that seems to be the case that you respond that it's hang its hat on and it's and for the every factor that the supreme court thought was in work in youngstown or reaching a holding that the union employment contract was new employment in indiana every factor cited by the supreme court in one me is a factor that points in favor of yan has and and has overwhelming evidence in our position your honor that of both the circuit judge and the nation got this case right terminations benefits at i'm not an expert and had agreement but i think it's only remedy i believe i'm not absolutely certain about is just so he can file a grievance if he thinks of terminations on their for example if he was found wound up destroying his help that way but you know which possible to do it and he worked for both both companies and and had aggravated both of them but they looked at the agreement and he had a right to do it so i guess i would take the position that yes he still have that potential right to be recalled that is why if he can make both jet job sites and work both shifts he would have a right to do it and that would be the position i would take and i asked her because she said it possible you know that when she was on her way to st louis at the airport she sent in the application with a note on and i have a couple of cases going on stealing and actually is terminated every single one of these people is subject to recall and that's pursuant to the contract and oh mr dunham says you know we all need to be looking at what honey says united airlines case they specifically said a layoff and recall of an employee positives a new employment contract that's our supreme court in two thousand and six and they were also dressing up found basically that the right of recall stemming from the collective bargaining vacations but basically for time off and all that stuff that you would use it for mind the hours that but should you have that's all gone and and with his his hypothetical he gets a secretary she can work as a secretary before she became a notary he was paying her to go to missouri we don't have that here he was not paid to go to west virginia mr him is absolutely positively could not based on his testimony based on mr shockley's testimony based on mr hudson's testimony and based on the statutes of west virginia could not work in that mine till he completed the conditions president you know he might have been able to do without the employment paperwork he could not do without house in the west virginia mine or six am he could not do it all of these cases say the same thing and to try and change the facts so that we can find that he has jurisdiction here it doesn't work you're either laid off or you have a continuing contract he was laid off so he's not going to get the benefit of continuing contract in illinois which means we have to see what the last acts were and very clearly based on everybody's testimonies those acts occurred in west virginia and that's why we're asking the missions that they created and reinstate the arbitrators