were with the return of those people who did return to reargue most people what that meant in terms of whether the other folks who were not asked to come back with that they were in fact terminated silent about their purposes applying those terms between a permanent permanent cessation of employment of the employment relationship which is a terminations and a temporary cessation of that relationship layoff so using that regulatory guidance not experience employment terminations under the act and nd related ruling hamilton workers who returned to work fewer than six months after the announcement of a temporary layoff also did not ex i know this is part of the record that i think i haven't heard these words mentioned so far and so i just think it's really important for all of us to remember as we consider this case that the regarding the section of the letter in question which is a one page letter is quote temporary layoff notice regarding temporary layoff notice and one of the st sentences in the letter is quote i regret to inform you that due to operational considerations ha different from that which is that with regard to a terminations if you had a face on you as you could have in any case where there is not a temporary layoff notice like we had here not a statement that you're going to be temporary laid off for a period but it terminations of course certain circumstances related to sort of business distress where you could actually have a layoff it goes longer than six months and it's still got the old worn notice event the point though is that that how things can happen and if it really does this hour's argument that on this question of temporary layoff and when you make that determination as i said before there is an absence to our knowledge of any judicial support minnesota which is directly on point it is conceded to be on point and it goes against them and to the point of that to judge point is that it would make it so that part b the temporary layoff section completely obliterated in fact hour more than you know sara lee would meet the hours requirement so you could not it would it would read out a statute the temporary layoff nd right these are three separate categories of employment action and precisely i gree with that and you know the question to but i think the way that you've characterized that letter is aligned with our position entirely as i was listening to the question earlier and on the hour's question it's simply you can't really idea seems that i don't have a lot of time left but i do want to make sure that address everything that the court would want of course that there are any other questions please let me know parents are not ok area of the country but it doesn't support that anyway the regulation is right it doesn't support ready this in any way and in fact we have the case of the smith case from the western district of virginia that addresses this exact issue which is that employment law something different to how you determine whether someone is an employee for purposes of the size of the employer so for all the reason is stated including the fact there is no judicial support for the other side i'll give you another minute if you have something else  things about things about are now these there's going to be extended layoff you need a new notice that's what graphic communication there's a separate employment law new employment laws if there's a plant closing like graphic communications you need a new