office and to see how they behave under the conditions of the job that's so can they do that when the employee isn't there yes i think they can putting both public servants law enforcement personnel firefighters and teachers where any action is all that is required for the provisionary period to expire the defendants seem to the third argument is that the board was powerless even if there were rules set activity and even if active duty meant eighteen months however long it may be which is really in those circumstances so long as the person comes back to work the legislature slater has decided that section twenty four of the act that those periods of absence will not be held against you is that speak to that would make sense because i think the defense argue i think what they what they have basically said is that under section twenty four of yaks she would be credited for seniority and they don't would potentially have greater seniority rights than the person i did to replace them if the person that was hard to replace them was continuously for the probation period which that doesn't make any sense  perhaps the system to hold those periods of absences yesterday was correct which came back to work each time and that was a mutual action on both partners and once she comes back to work two parts of the record for you is that she was hired and then twenty seven months later she was fired and i get the urge to look to the merits to look beyond the procedure but that's not what it's not the decisions on how and here we don't even have the expressed decision that she was probation or it's an implied decision based upon by the exception to the general rule  duty to satisfy them probation if she had not she was subject to summary dismissal which is what the board did in this case and the board's decision has to be affirmed i think one of the important things we need to look at here in it wasn't  the reviewing court judy is and what the standard is in reviewing agencies will making authority and its interpretation of its own rules and specifically those cases talk about when in courts reviewing agencies interpretation of its own rule substantial deference is accorded to the agency with regard to its interpretation of the rule because the agency has the expertise in the responsibility for in forcing that rule in this situation then the court is looking at whether the agency's interpretation has reasonable basis in the law and if it does the court does not interfere with the interpretation unless it's plainly around so that's the standard that we need to look at here to the extent that we're looking at the factual issue of first two thousand and ten meeting of the police commission in the city of washington and in when you read those minutes it was a number of things that were considered in the work by the board of that meeting one of which was the evaluation and retention and or dismiss officers from manti and her probation early status and it reflects that the board went into executive session to discuss that came out of executive session and voted to terminate office for many years and unsuccessful probationary office and then it's status of the play to your other consideration that because they acted to terminate her is unsuccessful i would also point out this is council this where they defy the board isn't in the direct responsibility for supervising anybody in the rules when you look at that identify the board will get reports periodic leave from the supervisors in the community officers police departments to evaluation and at that meeting on july twenty first two thousand and ten a deputy chief was there as well as the chief of police present  or participating so here we have we go back to the i think the overriding principle laws under spirit and that is officers who are on probationary status are not entitled to protection is found in section months active duty time for probation and then what point just work history was she was hired in march thirty first two thousand and eight she worked for a period of about thirteen months until she went on pregnancy leave i'm a sixty two thousand and now from may sixth two thousand and nine and she was on maternity leave so i'll be happy occasion is with her pregnancy until march of two thousand and ten so she was on from march twenty first of all way to me since know that she's returning back to duty from a period of leave and she had been reporting she got a period of leave then for ten months on maternity leave she was back for three weeks and then went on this is believed for a back injury for another three months if she came back for a couple of weeks and then did this you july ten i'm sorry july twenty first two thousand and ten meetings at which your employment was terminated so altogether she had about fourteen months on active duty and about thirteen months on leave from active duty and that made up to twenty seven months from the time higher to the time of terminations and i think here this is the manifest where the evidence standard in life rule of the war it's it's about boards review of an agency for protection which rules in its construction of the rules the language of even a convention rule is to be given its planning ordinary meeting and active duty as a player in ordinary meaning you're out there performing the duties of a police officer and again in light of the fact that the standard is whether the agency's interpretation of its rule is reasonable and has reasonable basis in the law the supreme court of the roman decision in nine hundred seventy eight pointed out be employed or on the rolls for eighteen months from the date of high in the board's consideration of that provide you're on active duty the board supervising agents and the police department can observe whether you're you've got the decision is who gets reduced or who gets laid off and that's the purpose of seniority and hello so when you consider that a section is twenty three twenty four which talk about the return of that these from active duty for disability in the return to active duty from  period of leave your to be credited with seniority and that's for purposes of the reductions in force in the layoff and it's merely a recognition of the length of time on the departments for purposes of seniority for layoffs  probationary period of testing to determine if the person possesses the characteristics of the qualification for jobs we're talking about seniority which is length of time first period of test in their state concepts in section twenty four does not first thirty days into the job takes a leave of absence for whatever reason probably military service medical leave whatever it is and be gone if it was military service that would be overseas for a period of twelve months or longer that's down the road he was only on active duty for a month he still had seventeen months of probationary period last so he has greater seniority than the officer off the issue but he's still on probation and i don't think that that's an absurd real logical  you still need to determine whether the officers met the qualifications and has the ability to do the job and there's been some level of argument to the board asked to take some action to grant periods of  actually move to terminate an officer who would return to active duty after being on leave from the police pension fund and i from the board of missionaries yasser was disabled apply for disability with a pension fund the pension fund put him on leave and the pension fund  also for many didn't plot for on the eve on her maternity from the war if you look at section twenty three for medical leave under section twenty three that applies and by the plain language when there is an injury in the performance of duty and the officer is temporary disabled you also can apply for leave to the police mission and that that leave shall be granted in this case for maternity leave was obviously not to be part of an injury occurred in the performance of duty so it doesn't fall in within variation and again that's a mr act it is in this case the probation wasn't extended that's never been an argument and has never been anything of the city or the police commissions will article the argument here is that the police commission rule is the probationary period is eighteen months of active duty time played this by the undisputed facts did not serve eighteen months of active duty time so she did not complete her probationary period by the time she was terminated so there was no need to first time she came back from her maternity leave if you look at the memo in the reactor dispute and similarly ruling would have been thirty two months in this case however there is a twenty four month period mentioned in the rule the rule sets all of which no appointments shopping for a probationary period of eighteen months of active duty no doubt that it says that