things are determined job last patients assigned in transfer part of the union work so that's exactly what the issue is here today a point during interest arbitration so i don't understand any way that language could be read to prohibit the conduct of the employer in this case the employer set forth that that was their reasoning and furthermore the contract cannot interfere was it said this is the whole freeman of the parties so the court should look at the four corners of the document you can tell there's got to be some significance to the dealing with court under the central city if an item is a management right but it also affects the terms and conditions and wages of the employees then the there is always either bargain and you know you would never get to a balancing test if it was a nine economic issue you know this isn't the sample vision of central city and it's clear from the central city analysis and the recommended decision  the exact same at all times and receive the exact same benefits there was no evidence whatsoever hearing of economic loss any part of the argument of the union this is that to make them application of the other finding of the central city task balancing the burdens of bargaining against the benefits so it wasn't a clear black and white issue of right versus wrong  just like getting proposal to employees to take reduce wages is related to potentially a management rights decision to go implement a layoff necessary they're both related to a financial issue but they're different you can't you as an employer unilaterally change the benefits and wages of employees you've got to negotiate but that affects the finances of the employer and there is  in your pretrial state issues instead of in your answer with the board was really saying as you raise this issue so date in the proceedings that you deprive the party and the administrative law judge of the opportunity to sufficiently dresses and that's why task it's important to recognize that section were keen to claim under section fourteen is canalize exactly the same as a claim under section seven so take this case out of the interest funds become smaller from metro and yes so in other words or it might have been even situation as the funds were down the wages went down on certain employees that would have been the employer contract with the natural system right and the money to the natural system gave the county diminished right over over several years it's not something that happened suddenly and where he had to build a bridge instantly it they varied the burden of proof that was their problem that they missed that issue i want to also address this argument that this was an affirmative defense that had theories in this argument is no different than saying  that they could have submitted that interest arbitration as well and it would have been their burden to prove that the change was necessary so there was no proposal from them to do that so essentially they're trying to give midrash our contractual rights and go there's really much less discretion as far as what they do the contract mandates for example they spend eighty percent of their time hearing again saying that this is all the same work is like saying the job of a felony prosecutor is the same as the