cell group of people that she worked with at the time and she was able to perform her job with that so it was not a specific light duty job that was created for she went back to work within that self that sells a group of people that were to make manufacturing parts for this particular company now that the entire cell was laid off or a two week period and looted her with that layoff and once again this was in a separate light duty job which we do provide that the person can't go back to work within that cell because there's various jobs within the not only that fact but you have to judge our facts at the time i tried this case before the arbitrator what are you or what one of the mission because the second issue is is we were hit arbitrator with me on those set of facts and we distinguish we had not had a factual set of factual case similar to this there are two granite city case which is different which there is a with your production case this is all before interstate back to this particular case when it was trial we presented evidence that was a good faith basis for our policy and we filed it we got it there and when you look at the whitney production cases  the granite city case the freemen the framing case all of those cases those cases are factually different than what we presented to this arbitrator in through the commission and then i replied brief you know we d case in the whole nine november of zero nine the commission affirmed a decision where there were people who were on light duty and then those regular group of staff people everybody was laid off and the outside of the cell that's a different situation where we would pay t v if there was a layoff that's ok but when you have them go back into your cell and are doing their regular job at the cell even though their own light duty the charge that she was actually performing when she was on light duty was a job that she could do with her restrictions so she was pretty picture she was doing a regular job she wasn't like sorting on the loads or sitting over county you know invoices she was disappearance and performing within that cell group which is an important arsenal of the whole process so ok and those jobs buried within that group i'm not saying that she could have done every job within that cell but  that one you know this wasn't a general plan layoff this was not you know this was a salad lay off because they'd made enough parts for this particular process hated me that sell for a period of time it was two weeks i mean you know if you look at the record there was with every employee in that plant for about i think was about three or four months i don't remember exactly facts it wasn't a two year period ok so when when you consider the facts i mean you know  you are putting that worker was i'd like to be in the same economic position that you are putting people who are not at all off work you're you're not distinguishing between the two sets of climate issue quite extensively in this brief and i'm not sure that's really a significant issue but i mean he covers it and i'll let him address that issue about your appropriateness are not appropriate  it's reasonable for the employer not paper because the loss of income has nothing to do with the correct and also just just so i think it's important i think this it's different if you create like a special light duty job outside the normal work area where the person working like sorting the on will open that i think that's a distinction because you want to try to get the people back into the same group of people that they're working  with when there are likely to work and when i say light duty now this job that she was performing she was building the slides and she done that job before it sets paved c one zero one of the record about her saying that she had done this particular job for her original job required a lot heavier work but the point being is that you can still perform a job with restrictions but you're performing that job all do willful there's no question peace still in place you've got to understand in this manufacturing industry and business that that these layoffs are going to occur occasionally i mean so it it's not like you know from my perspective based on the tenor of the record you know these are temporary layoffs these are you know maybe you know this was different african economic times when this took place you know we're all you know it goes without saying that a lot more layoffs now than there were back when this case was tried but these are temporary layoffs these are plant shut down so those cases are factually distinguishable but the whole point being is that i think the policy was reasonable objective believe reasonable and so the problem i have is a worr we get here for penalties and i realize that commission is a brand new fact finding so i understand that but i think you also have taken into consideration that arbitrator's decision that that you know he agreed with said and to be quite candid with you it's a both those cases they they they stated that the determination of whether someone isn't held to receive t v benefits is based on whether or not their condition has stabilized and whether or not they're able to work in this case council's conceded th obviously you're obviously but your decision if it stephan was based upon the bad bad conduct of the fish or there's that scaffolding they were fired for cause in your decision was some of those fired for cause should not be receiving that they were unable to earn income irrespective of their disability was irrelevant the next was decided before this funeral yes it's actually  the arbitrator's decision basis and so we can rely upon its expertise in determining that this issue is something that employers should be aware of the rule is something for should be aware of that's not affected leave reasonable and that's why they order penalties commissions as presidential value on the commission what about those those five you know it does not you them obviously the lower court the commission decision this was something you review with deference  job it may not have been a job in the office sorting papers in sort of deliberately neat work but it was not her normal job it was something she had done before when she had run out of work to do according to her testimony there's evidence in the record know group or cell or a whole scenario like we have here and actually we relied upon that with a production's face as part of the arbitrary decision to present a show or evidence that our facts were different than that so therefore and he relied upon so i bring that up just to say there's no from my review of the court case other freemium case had nothing to do with layoffs there was a ford motor company case that cited in the briefs in that case