beat venture was required in this case to reach outside of its local union or in as employees still employees to travel in to help i build the claim and volunteer to do that i mean nobody requires where they set out to define what a traveler floyd is they first look at the traditional definition of a travel agent ploy and that isn't employed to restaurant or stated travels away from the employee's premises and they ask themselves is  different whether the employee is requested by an employer to travel to a distant job site where he would stay for a given amount of time in this case twenty days and when the work is complete and i think a close reading  pace you will see that the employer in that case purchased at an hourly construction worker hour the maintenance worker should be treated differently than an ordinary traveling employee somebody who is required to travel frequently for their job and the detained in the right case and also the employee in the chicago bridge case in both of those instances and i'll talk about chicago because i think it's a little more similar to the facts of this case the employer asked an employee to travel to  need to ask employees to travel was in order for the venture to fill its agreement with exxon they did not have adequate skilled labor vote at local twenty five which is out of rock island and in order to fill that void in was asked to work a job he was not required to take the job nor was the employer required to offer that job identical to the facts in chicago bridge if you accepted the job he was officially an employee the moment punched him and at the end of the job at the end of this case twenty days he would be terminated all of these facts are directly on point with the employee in chicago bridge which the fifth district determine to be traveling floyd under that set so what is the rule that you're asking us to announce your company miles as the person have to travel i mean somebody moves themselves temporarily fifty miles closer than one hundred what's the rule going to be i don't believe a bright line rule is an order in a case like this i believe that it's a factual evaluation  he was required to be with them one hour of the site creating the disputed fact if the court doesn't believe that this is a sufficient disputed fact i would point out that the henry case supreme court case states that before the question is a relevant to the question yes or hundred miles away from all i believe that it is your honor because by the by the commission relying upon the defendant's testimony are seized me by the employee by the employees testimony that he was required to be within one hour that is a requirement to travel from springfield which is over two hundred miles to be within a route with with an approximate geographical if you can you difference whether he was required to be within one  facts that indicate that the job required mr doherty to travel in or more to the point that the venture required it's still labor to get skilled employees to travel from a remote location in order to fill that were void that was employee of a anybody at that point wasn't no your honor but he had been employed for prior times five county in this instance with the venture in each one of those times one of those times including that over power plant he was under the stand understand he must be within one hour so if your a good person and you have an opportunity for that anywhere in the state of illinois and you automatically become a traveling away it has to be your argument right no your honor i don't believe that is the argument that i'm putting forward is  changes that the fundamental reason behind not once having to and from work stuff the reason that's not considered to be in the course of employment is because the employer generally has no stake in where that employee sta believe that the case yes your honor this is the right case examines for the first time whether or not an employer asking an employee to travel to a remote location to perform work but those away from the normal employee premises and right correct yes sure he was already working at the employer's premises and then asked to go somewhere else that's not what happened here i'm pressed chicago french and i are this close or your honor in that case the employee was very similar employment was very similar  employment in this case where mr doherty ever worked for the employer at various locations throughout all annoy as he worked he as his work was complete was terminated the same as the employee in that case employed with then have another job and offer that job to the employee in that case he was not required to offer the job to the ship to the employee in chicago bridge or was that employed require to accept a job and still because the four year and the cases asked in an employee to employees premises they're still travelling employees because you're required to travel away from the premises and they assume the risks all travel as part of their work now the question becomes in this place was he required to travel  close as an emergency there's no workers that are qualified to do this and we have to go out of the commission described this proving going on you know with the locals and what we have is a normal everyday situation among before they made their arrangement that's this particular lodge they figured out how much money they would be making for the short period of time after we take up our travel expenses the place here so we know the facts so workers and employers premises for purposes of the application of the traveling employee in my office now i have to travel down here today or bring this me out i mean i'm here i'm traveling employee for purposes of what i'm doing here right now i'm going to go back to my office if i'm clearance i'm not exactly he was hired by the time yes yes well but it was the first day he went back to the motel i think with a good faith he actually went straight to work and then checked into the hotel that night and then in the morning he so they also found that he was exposed to greater risk because he got up at six o'clock in the morning and there was ice on the road and because of ice on the road now we got a chance to get it cleaned off yet and so therefore there was an increase  what they found well they found it a close reading i think it commissions decisional so that they found that the commission states they did not require that on page eighty three sixty four at the very bottom it states that the petitioners understanding that the respondent one of the workers to be within an hour's travelling distance of the plant it also states that as a practical matter the employment with the venture required that they be within a distance close to the plant because it would be