position i mean we could really imply his position that he really was the one who has to bring the action on behalf of his employees and if they don't have an individual right i think the individual public everything that you wanted you still have the right to come back here i say it with a well the there is a difference between holy that the board has exclusive jurisdiction holding the board his primary assuming that he's let's say he just has to lay off one employee and it he gets to pick then employ it i think that that is if to collectively bargain that issue it would depend on the reason for the layoff i would say it was just i once again caring time an assistant state's attorney on behalf of the county your honor i'm not sure where you'd like to a certain terms of questions but if you'd like i can tell you this right where you think you have mr right now let me just about one minute to the first issue that was raised by my opponent and that is whether or not this  the lower court abused its discretion and and entering the order of october fourth the issue of whether a now that the labor board had exclusive jurisdiction is an issue that both parties did have an opportunity to prefer that was an argument that i made in my motion to  dismiss my opponent had an opportunity to brief that so they did have an opportunity to make arguments about that if they wanted further another opportunity to discuss that before the trial court they could have filed a motion to reconsider was going to suggest in the interest of judicial economy i think it would not make any sense to send this back to the trial court because there is a very good chance that we would be back here again on another appeal so therefore your honor i would ask that this court no but i think there are several good reasons why the county defendants win in this case and i think one of the first ones the court should look at you know is whether or not the plaintiffs have a private right of action under section three dash four thousand eight point one of the county's code it's clear that this part of the code was created in order to provide adequate representation to indigent defendants to create a system that would benefit not only these indifference to indigent defendants but the public in general and assuring that they got fair trials that's the purpose of the point public defenders code and it gives the public defender of the independent authority to hire fire choose who to keep in his office and who to terminate and what happened in the decision and to determine who was going to stay or not stay in his office because it's up to the public defender it's just side how best to provide services to indigent defendants in the county of cook that was the issue that was before the court and burnett there was no issue before this court in burnett with respect to the employees the public defender had specifically stated he was not trying to advocate on behalf of any of the rights of  his employees in the barnett matter so this quote really had no occasion to reach that issue at all and there is absolutely no discussion you know should there have been any discussion and burnett as to whether or not employees have a private right of action under section three to four thousand eight point one of the counties code and if we look at that section of the code i think it's fairly clear that the court was not that this section was created now not to provide benefits to employees but to provide benefits for the public and indigent defendants if we look at the language of the purpose so that we can tell that they're the intended beneficiaries and if this goes through the four factors that are necessary to look at to determine if the is a member of a class for whether or not for the benefit for whose benefit the statute was created i think it's pretty clear that employees were not the intended beneficiaries and i've cited a number of cases in my briefs where there have been instances that the public defender it's not adequately representing his right at it this way assume there was no collective bargaining agreement and these individuals were laid off and then the public defender as we know took them back out on his new positions opened up later in the year status and talking about a president of the county  little again if if they wanted to through a collective bargaining agreement they could file a grievance and they could grief that either employees of the county corral laid off and who do not have the protection of a collective bargaining agreement do not necessarily have any action that they can bring to collect back pay when they haven't been working all these employees were off for several months at least were not working during that period of time and absent those protections  officer but had they not been laid off by todd stroger they would have been laid off by burnett and any of that not necessarily why did they get chosen different actually he had to file the collective bargaining agreement seniority list which would've been the same group of people off many people and the employees in this group or were fortunate in that they were able to be recalled that doesn't mean that they're also entitled to get paid for the months during two thousand and seven when they were not working there is not necessarily  did have that avenue of relief but for whatever reason chose not to pursue it we've also argued in our brief that the labor board is the place where they should have filed an action if they were going to file it anywhere other than filing arbitration it has jurisdiction exclusive jurisdiction over this matter i just read a short quote from the cessna decision which indicates why it's appropriate for the labor board to have jurisdiction in that case the plaintiff was pursuing a claim against the city and circuit court and the court found that to allow such a claim to go fight fair it would undermine the x stated purpose that the labor board act and festered the legislature's intent to provide a uniform body of law in the field of labor management relations to be administered by those who have the require expertise in the area so it's this reason that the legislature intends matters of this nature to go to the labor board to be resolved by the labor board or alternatively through the even if the wrong officer does the firing of the langauge i would say yes your honor because these in the quest case there was in that case there was an allegation that there also was a violation of the statute but because the matter i it really isn't it's totally separate statute and it provides rights that are totally separate from the employment rights and those in that case the court but the plaintiffs go forward with that action because it was a different type of action that really didn't involve their rights simply i gave that they were laid off by the office and that would be action the board dress could fire an unfair labor practice claiming that the contract was violated they were not laid off by the correct person or in the correct fashion and that the break could address that either ordering the employer to do to do the layoffs properly or to bargain over the manner in which the layoffs were conducted you could argue that your rights under the duty to bargain to get information and your rights and therefore you get information or various quotes that therefore you should pursue the labor act first but this court in that case rejected that some of the same people would have been laid off that they still would have been independent cause effect because the wrong person later i think that that is correct i think that what i mean you should know yeah well you very much sir you know it was a pleasure to hear this case and it was a pleasure to read these briefs and take this case under advice thank you