and the important thing that came out of trial here is this is the first times the only time it's ever happened they made an exception and the argument that we've heard on this is that well basically it covers medical costs maybe sixty five percent of your of your comp your wages and then you get all a permanent injury settlement that's all it covers it doesn't it doesn't pay the employee for his accrued benefits there you are prior to the engine of the second issue was it really deals with the city has a union representative or they say that the union made a deal with the city to do this to tape is recruit benefits and used to reimburse themselves because it i don't want to stop you from making the arguments in your underlying case but the court has raised the issue of whether or not we have jurisdiction to hear this case if you try to address that i was i will get to that next the get the subject matter it was a contract a shooting clue to three counts and the one of the house was in a contract this is the city here just if they do that that is not they say that is not to be part of the grievance procedure that's in the in the collective bargaining agreement under the grievance provision i think is the last my client going to the attorney for the union man and really i think the president or officials in the union saying hey what are we doing about this and they defused to give him a form to  right that would be correct sir on mr rich i think if i understand correctly that the thirtieth position is that they negotiated with mr evans union representative and came to this representative and i do that not negotiate with the city it's the difference between a separate bargain and collective bargaining and how do we know that we know that because of the collective bargaining agreement we do and we also know that we also know that because it's in the briefs but we have testimony in court that this is the first time they tell them you know did they bring this union official  he's mentioned in the trial transcript and the it's also mentioned that you know this is the first time we've ever done this first time anybody's ever done has  us so we don't really know that happened we don't know what it was present but and what we're required to focus on here is whether or not the case that you brought is a case that under the existing state and federal law needed to be brought before the labor board rather than a court judge one of the i just some of the reasons it is here is that product up again and i think i think it's a good it's a good argument if you would but i mean the if there is no interpretation oil labor relations board they're going to say hey this is exempt so why are you here and thank you mr reds are there any other questions frustration in this case is there are three at least three reasons why this case should not be here and there the first reason is the issue that the court has raised the issue of the subject matter said that if it is future arises regarding it collectively based upon a collective bargaining agreement that that dispute should be under the exclusive jurisdiction of the illinois labor relations for this case no matter how council and play they'll try to avoid it has been pled in three separate complaints with the attached as being based upon that deals with accrued six up there is nobody in the state of illinois under that act that has the right to be paid a crude sick time unless there is a separate remit which gives rise to exists a collective bargaining agreement which gives him that right so when he says it's based upon the only way jack it's not and nor is this authority to represent as the union representative did make the deal that made the city somewhat whole and gave mr kibbles the ability to make himself whole and we'll deal with  that just a matter because mr kim is was fully informed that this was what was happening and if you look at the documents attached to the complaint he sent e mails back and forth to the union saying why did you do this what's going on disability short term disability pay neither of which he really needed in our opinion he did but as sure as his long term disability but it turns of the medical issue medical insurance issue that was about it but the issue from the city standpoint is yes absolutely we didn't know that the city was not being going to be reimbursed for his t t d until october of the year that we had to pay him since james that's when the public response informed the city we terminated from t t t as of january of two thousand and three we just for whatever reason obligation he says jane worth twenty of two thousand and three i well rather than have you repay us that money and then we'll pay us your benefits the city took the position that will apply this to your group benefits and if you have an issue with workers car all of your cases at that point all of his cases a bad one were still pending fo better communication but we can't pay but when we finally realized there was not going to be reimbursement that's when we stopped but the city should have to pay back twice which is what is to give a disaster he's asking to be paid not only thirty nine thousand he's already received from us which was one hundred percent of his pay from january twentieth through december fifteenth and the two hundred thirty thousand almost that he received from workers the city's workers comp carrier thing there is there was never a formal rejection of anything you know there were conversations representations made that was that the city was not involved in haiti and all we know is what churns carrier they point that out as number one and they say the second issue is well you know he did we see his permanent as compensation for his permit injury we've got one of the thousand dollars and then they say why should we pay him a double benefit where i still wear how how are they or her telling us there's a double benefit  benefits to make them whole that's what they're doing there is no there is no double benefit if you would and and just quickly your honour's the  my client in his complaint made the statement that he exhausted his administrative remedies he trying you know e g you haven't funded you that statement plus