a question which i'd like to revisit this week what are my feelings about city of chicago that's basically is that not with the issue of whether there's going to be you know question not whether we would disagree though this with respect to the standard of review in these types of case and and we believe we section eight in connection with any proceeding the board or any of its designated hearing officers shall have full authority over the conduct of the hearing and the responsibility for submission of the matter there they are as a matter of law under the alternative yes they are manish as a matter of law at all well let me ask you this  signs off on those i mean overwhelming majority i mean astronomically high majority of those just i think and i would agree with you there in the real world that's partly how it does work but i guess if impartial decision makers the integrity of the adversary system demands a rigorous separation of those two functions and i rely upon that because here you do have that very situation that it's not a bargain who's going to who's who's going to exercise all the supervisors and managers there's no one i mean this is the last one  clearly erroneous standard applied in the city of chicago is appropriate here and a similar standard does apply in another similar kind text this is an investigatory proceeding investigatory process of the department of human rights and in which this court held that a similar standard abuse of discretion would be applied in that situation that those types of standards clearly erroneous or abuse of discretion recognized that the agency has some expertise and another thing that was recognized and well is that this is weighing of evidence in this case though the evidence really wasn't there there were some statements in a position statement and some statements in response to a rule but there was some sort of pull in some sort of substantive pulmonary showing not necessarily proving the case but providing some  factual basis for it because the legislature intended this new card check or dues deduction proceeding to be something that would be conducted expeditious it's not something that should be allowed just because the employer parrot's basically standards from statute the statute or the case law without providing some facts and supporting evidence to back it up mr weiner also argues that mr where peter is managerial as  a matter of law this is something that was never raised before raised in c m s as submissions nor some of the facts that mr mr i wonder talks about like the or supervisory authority of the marriage areal as a matter of law argument does not hold water here because to be a manager is a matter of law the person must stand as a for some public official or really must be clothed with all of that public officials power and privileges and as your honor pointed out that's not the case  here the statutory provision section sixteen will cash one eighty five of the property tax appeal board says that it's the board that makes decisions the board's regulations say that it must be a majority of the board statutory and common law professions it did not go to the actual reality it did not look to what was in the factual record and in this case there's no real common was the p t a visa said a creature of statute so when you wrote to the statute the statutes say that the side that it's the poor itself to perform that has the power over managerial employee is involved in the direction of a major government enterprise or some unit thereof in the county if the case which involved attending physicians at a county hospital that the attending physicians patient care activities do nothing to run the department to set the department's goals to establish in effect right policies and procedures to mr weiner live read some language from that c m s case indicating the necessity of the division between attorneys and nail j that was in the context of a situation where the mentioned a few of the eleven statutory and supervisory authority that mr wagner met did not provide any specifics really about how he met them and then the response to the rule of two show was presented nothing on that issue and there were several  is submissions with regard to the statutory supervisory task for one thing even if somebody meets several of the statutory and they have to perform those tasks with a consistent use of independent judgment that's there's nothing in the submissions that establishes that also the alleged supervisor must spend  statute a person can have so managerial responsibility and some responsibility that would be considered supervisory without being a statutory manager or statutory of supervisor again has the preponderance requirement so it's very possible that mr wagoner could engage in some activity that would ordinarily be considered supervisor but w about may it please the court i'm melissa block ever present after me in this matter in this case the employer risk open to opportunities to file submissions with the board to convince the board why this case should go to  assigning cases helping to prepare the agenda and provides and reviews decisions to make sure they're in conformance with the statute and ethical legal standards which would again be something that could be performed by an employer with superior experience professional expertise those are things said the supreme court and city freeport sad with respect to fire lieutenant's and fields willing is something that makes somebody lead worker and i have a statutory supervisor and the same standards apply whether it's an attorney a professional employee or a fire lieutenant so the c invested not even provide enough for there to be a reason to go to hearing now was discussed was that the board has recently begun to certify some cases without having a hearing i don't know that that was never done before ok that there was a preponderance of time spent supervising exemption must be there for event in fact be in place spencer planets of the time performing work i mean the work at this agency is to write for the air and officers to write these decision that's that's basically the work or function performed and even though the workers are professional attorneys serving in turn officers their workers for purposes of labor law who have the right to organize this other professional employees  time performing managerial functions with respect to that's true in the state prison system where you have lieutenants and sergeants and correctional officers all represented even though the officers and sergeants report to the tenants it's true in fire departments where you have t standards is no different than throughout state local government where you hear off employees represent for collective bargaining purposes to counter with an employee another employee who makes you feel superior to them in the line of reporting but the illinois labor act which has narrow definitions of supervisor and manager broad collective bargaining rights for employees even though they may spend some time supervising or managing as the term administrative hearing officer it's other than this employee have been represented and have been able to be represented without any problem even though they're performing hearing officer functions which it's employer she was also performing says for example as to whether in question of representation or exclusion from the unit existed a question reasonable offer and that if you go on there's a lot of other stuff that is