instance where are the court is an interest in the case that this is not that situation there mandated situations where a judge has to recuse him or herself if there is something of a conflict per se conflict or just make up but what the world provides is when this kind of thing comes before the court but the course you do is ask the chinese to step out in the court hallway for a moment or to a position where the two minutes are going to calm the case is an issue that you are concerned about and you would ask her to be cute it's not a problem for me or any of us if that does happen one of your requests is to happen perfectly fine we're going to proceed with the argument today anyway what we will do is have another judge come in and sit on the concerning this issue of gang activity and gang violence within the cook county sheriff's office airways acknowledged that the sheriff has a duty to maintain the safety and security of his of the balancing test lie i think that in the central cities case the actual discuss the benefits to either side the relative benefits to the employer he versus the relative benefit or the relevant burden so on the employer you're it's not really never expressly refused to bargain the silence in response to the union's request burden but again in response to the union's request for problem because if they only allowed to sort of fly into the radar there and not even recognise their duty to by going into unfair labor practice proceedings are already in play then that sort of does away with the policy in section three up and the central city school at the supreme court i highlighted that there were some ambiguity as between section four and section ten of the act and that was their balancing test their adoption of the balancing test which came from a number of other courts but i was adopted by the united states supreme court and interpret the national labor relations act  and another case as the way of presenting those ambiguity is between section four and section ten so that the history read out in the central city is this pretty useful in identifying how there was no evidence presented that there was an urgent need to adopt this policy certainly the subject matter on its own is is a severe issue it's a it's a serious  as the counselor as the labor relations attorney for the sheriff admitted during his testimony at the board there had been a historic way to discipline employees where the rights of verified concern about being and in the sense that you were going to the question of whether the union members they'll kill in their speech the way it previous world had been in for for years and years and years with give them some assurance that cracked and i think that we can all recognize just as a members of the general public that this has changed a lot since the rules of conduct relations act sad and how are the united states supreme resolved and under that act so it to suggest that it is not relevant or not a the status quo based on what i was speak speaking about with in response to justice nicholas question that because there had been no prior instances or evidence of prior discipline relating to that that it would be unreasonable for the employees to now say that it could chill speech but because of the facts that the we're talking about an entirely different frown and this is not a small f and says that that is the case so there's been a time frame that has passed when that has not been the understanding and now that it has to be the understanding based on the sheriff's admonition and the  associations is that the clip the sheriff's function to provide so you can keep the peace recognizing that the sheriff is on one side of the long gangs on the other side that will and the chef is allowed to enact regulations on that subject without bargaining it the teamsters have mounted their challenge with its burden perceived brilliance from the river which really speak to the effects of the river and not the subject itself riot they are conflating the effects in discipline the should have known standard that applies also do you think this in order has anything to do with conditions of we want to come up with a rule that everybody can live back to under the tast it exists so that it if the employees know something that the employer doesn't but they have some particular knowledge on an issue they can come to the table they can say we can we  would be a benefit they can weigh against the burden of bargaining and i that's not if they did hear that they focus on balancing paperwork and burdens in this investigat and we've identified right you know the the problems with pointing to burdens in paper reddock the from itself it's in the record it's it's not long  that's not the analysis and i think the reading that should know requires that you go out and actually investigate family and close associates it's it has no basis under that should have no standard  but if they were able to connect the benefits to the decision making process then that indeed would have a case to case today and i think that was inherent in the  sal this is existed forever and you can't tell me you can't it it didn't matter if it didn't change so you you can't really out of the blue without evidence or anything so that it has changed  implementing is that an unfair labor practice we submit that it absolutely is the central servers analysis turns on a balancing test counselors for odd the  defendants have sort of claimed i was in britain for the shows to sit down and talk to us about it there would have been any burden on them at all does it apply to neighbors does it apply to somebody that you met and that's dot com and went on one date with if you see them with a crown tattoo or you suppose know that they have that chain around clean what do you have to know in order to have to disclose somebody