directly to what i suggest in the court but the key parts of the record if you examine them show you that the board of review clearly err in making the factual findings that were the predicate for  call back what happened he said i didn't call her back i'm going to get rich has to come down i hope she would call me back on the next day she says she never followed up but when i pressed him at pages one hundred want to warn asked him about what he was saying you she said and we've argued she was offered a set of very frustrating personal problems she was hyperactive come back she thought she was coming back the phone conference changed the matter of a disciplinary matter came up she made her statement record was that she said it once and lovelace or super i said i asked her to repeat it so she did exactly what her supervisor said so the fact that this is the board felt that it was some kind of repetitive sade's here is is on the telephone so the matter there was no discussion because there was nothing brought up to discuss and there is no facts in here and were the board comes to that conclusion not only of not meeting but not meeting to why were you going to address less to her something he did not convey to her and said well we have had problems on her bus that came to a head with the substitute driver in the last couple days so nothing in the back and forth between that there was some other factor they found on the phone that she hung up but they never said that was some kind of insubordinate i don't infect mr lovelace never sent the phone call was cut short he never said she slammed the phone down they all just said she hung up in fact she said there is no nothing in the record that contradicted it she said i said well then i'll see you at two thirty and off in the call back was can you come in at one o'clock you can kiss my grits i mean clearly it's a direct and personal attack of use of the path of the supervisor and look at the manning case where unfortunately the employee was leaving very using f word messages on all kind of other poll workers phones because the employee was so upset and wasn't directed to him or what is the basis for that drawing that conclusion by the board i would suggest that when you look exercised she expressed her frustration about the circumstances her surprise about being apparently the subject or being involved in some manner of this manner coming up after hearing she was going to be returning to work after some personal problems i would suggest you th well i think the only case that i saw that the rectally addressed it was carol case actually made a comment about how they view the lank because most of the came in and in fact he said he was there this mike this was there what he was there the politics of course he came and met to discuss he never said anything and then well i said i'm going to have to recommend you for terminations because what you said there never was testimony that she eventually met with him in person and i believe he had knowledge apologized to him for the comment she never followed up with him to talk about the disciplinary issues about which she had contacted her either by phone or in person program because they decided to fire her after the from that's correct she wasn't fired on the basis of that discipline he wished to speak with her about she was fired because she made the statement hung up the phone but i guess my point is french once they ma dditional compound instance of misconduct you still have to be there which by themselves are certainly compounded not sure that she would be in response to her supervisors directive which guess i think is important to report to work early to discuss tips of her matters she made the statements repeated the statement and hung up the phone on her supervisor so hanging up the phone on the supervisors of her that i think that's an additional thing i think i think testify that she made the statement and hung up the phone on him she testified she didn't remember hitting up the phone i have it and from that point of view i don't know i think you know back when we have the phones that rest on the cradling and half watching them up rather than a cell phone where you click the button off i don't know that you can really slam a phone anymore with the technology we have these days so he testified she hung up the phone on him and she testified to right she said she didn't remember so at that point i mean the board of review is the fact finder and if there is a question of fact if it resolved it that she hung up the phone on him and for the sport to reverse of course that would have to be against the manifest weight of the evidence so i have to at the very lowest there was a question of fact on that i don't the fact that she could have also brought it up the fact that it could have been discussed over the phone yet she hung up on him after she was surprised at this i don't know where they where to place the blame on who i don't know that you have to give a reason why her terminations i don't know that a reason for terminations has to be given out of course here i'm not representing the employer i'm just representing the state the board of review of the decision maker  you know based on the findings of whether these actions constitute misconduct under the act which made her and helped her employment benefits not whether her her discharge was proper or do comment was made in response to a lot less telling her you need to come and early to discuss the discipline disciplinary matter resulting from activity on her past and assign a disciplinary action work and she admitted that her statement followed that statement from how the records are a flag you know what whatever the about what the problem was the problem was of course she was out that day from work for the personal reasons and the record does reflect our point of court to see seventy eight ninety two and ninety five a substitute bus driver had apparently driven for her that day or the prior day and noted the lack of discipline on the bus with the children children were out of line with she was their parent we she had had prior warnings on this manner i think the substitute bus driver's record yeah the pages see seventy eight ninety two and ninety five hour for  apparently this lack of discipline and safety on the bus was a recurring theme and corrective actions had not been taken after prior warnings and she was counseled on this fire and the document temper is not misconduct there may be cause for just charge in those cases there was no profanity and the response i be employed was not in response to a supervisor still active to do something  was here the carroll case at page six ninety three doesn't know that a single incident of insubordinate behavior constitutes or can constitute misconduct and though this was in a private conversation  supervisor it was still a deliberate disregard for her or her employer's authority and lack of respect or supervisor this conduct need not occur in the presence of others outside of a private interaction with their supervisor if that was  still disregard the authority and lack of respect to her superior in a private conversation especially as it was here in regard to her supervisors directive to come in and talk to them and sign a disciplinary action for all addressed to carol case committed misconduct and was and eligible for benefits but there was a lot more to there that you know i think it was very i would disagree i think it's very similar in fact case in response to and then challenge the supervisors at the ready to fire and i think that's a very similar to ours when the supervisor call feel id come to work early we have a disciplinary matter we need to discuss you need assignments disciplinary action form this is bullshit hung up the phone brought it up as well knowing what she knew from the phone conversation but i would say even if you want to disregard that third you've still got it in response to the supervisor structure of profane statement was made her famous statement was repeated hung up and i believe we've covered covered the others during their questioning it's important to note that this is not just the utterance of one profane statement that there was it needs to be taken in the context within which it was sad and it was combined with other acts what part of the facts in this case is that definition of misconduct and the definition is broken in a three case was interpreted three aliments misconduct as deliberate willful violation of an employer's role or policy role or policy has to be reasonable and as there were no prior warnings from the employer do not swear i mean we fall into that kind of sub prong of the third element that the violation jaimie employer which the case  reasonable rule or policy shift the result the reasonable rule or policy first of all need not be a threat it's a standard of behavior an employer has a right to expect in hearing that would be when the employer gives a direct  employee not respond with profanity or one of the actions here i would suggest the court could look at the green light in the ending carol cases as their kind of standard misconduct management and things like that i would make the same argument for hanging up the phone in response to a traffic supervisor as well correct well it's an admission as i hear of there is there because for you now to pick and choose and to the side well if it's this alone or whatever now are you making the decision for the word we don't know that it took all of those things woven together from the board to reverse the current decision they made now we're going we don't have to consider this and maybe it really wasn't repeated and maybe she fainted maybe you don't have to consider this gus a what that's why direction of the trial court to reverse and send that with an order to give her the benefit she should have been due because she was disqualified from getting those benefits i guess what i'm getting at is we don't get the part after to tell us whether they would you