my legal career twenty months the two collective bargaining agreements have a term of three years will be expired and less than three months of the sixty three years of age i practiced law thirty seven years ninety nine percent of that has been labor law and i know quite a bit about administrative law either served  the issue one issue in front of the circuit court back in april of two thousand i'm sorry may i guess a two thousand and the cabinet case now any of the justices want citation for those cases we happy to provide them there up here we take a second for me to remember him but they're here no one can read the foster wheeler energy case the two thousand and four decision was made by the second  and reconcile that decision to what yellowing labor relations board it to me and my client can be done in that case new york contractors legislature passed the yellow line building and construction contractor and made illegal for own choice and choice award in construction contract not only did it say that it was this case that we have here is quite suitable under this bill and it's inconceivable that a court could possibly go past the first step of a langar decision those are my words those are the only supreme court words there is nothing within the statutory amendment that indicated that that was to go into effect immediately not but let me indicate so just to stagnate because i want to make sure that i'm i don't want to be what i want to be clear here it is your position that notwithstanding this new statute that the collective bargaining agreement should remain full force in effect and my question since we're looking to what the legislature has said there are ten if you are right that they intended this why didn't they say it with regard to these folks as the same argument and asked me the same question and i answered it this way the analysis is topsy turvy if indeed he only legislature intended it to be in fact to the langar of analysis to the statutory provision again i don't want to be flippant about this but nobody nobody can read foster w court decisions were the law of the land and the state when the only supreme court decides three different cases unless the nine years and quickly indicates the manner time i know you are going to get angry at me but i'm going to go ahead and indicates that you do the companion case when you are you indicated that you were not you may be old and slow be to remember that comment i would indicate to the court that that decision was wrong want to was made and it's wrong today and i'll tell you why i could convince you in arbitration and within my greetings that's on page six united seventy one on page seventy of the record you'll see that i indicated that my grievance doesn't depend on when the statutory memory goes into effect it didn't matter whether it was self effectuating on april fifth two thousand and thirteen it didn't matter whether you had to wait for a unit clarification they had all my labor relations for for april eighth two thousand and fourteen and it didn't matter when he waited until the end of the collective bargaining i indicated that was a file a motion of a collective bargaining agreement no matter when that statutory effect took place i head a collective bargaining agreement that was a breach because of the covenant of good faith circuit court was whether indeed there was a a collective bargaining agreement that post ten challis covered that and by the way i cited three or four different sections of the contract work that were chief six fifteen should be not despite that the circuit court dismissed my case but said you can plead over and violation of the six fifteen and said i'm not sure what this is all about but i want to one legal issue he was supposed to decide this issue osa conduct an investigation supposed to conduct a hearing and supposed to issue a decision within one hundred twenty days investigation generally here and didn't decided with one hundred twenty days didn't decide to run the issue i raised never contacted the union and believe it or not after i filed a thirty nine page exception yeah labor relations board off in toto the a in my initial pleading indicating that this is the correct way to do it in the eleanore i ordered trustees the university of chicago case where the our labor foster wheeler involved a statutory provision that truong the common law the contract that was state policy they serve a legitimate purpose and they got a plucky bargaining agreement that defines the turns and conditions of employment and tell a certified exclusive bargaining board correctly rejected the union's contention that amended section three and could not applying to the expiration of the existing collective bargaining agreements in june of two thousand and fifteen this is so because excluding the p s a from collective and this case this court rainbow apartments and other courts as well have sat that sort of language is not specific enough to set out what the temporal reaches so therefore if the first step does not answer the question about what the temporal reach should be under procedural amendment it can be applied retroactively but if it's a substitute one and now and here we do agree that amended section three on is a substantive amendment so therefore it can't be applied retroactively it's substantive because before the an act or nothing then minutes the p s a is at work for the comptroller were public employees for purposes of the act but after the amendment there are no longer public employees for purposes yet however as the board concluded below this that over you know the board didn't address that so i'm leery to say but i would think if it refers to things that happen when they're a union member it probably would be allowed to go  and of course some contracts would not have an expiration date so it's hard to kind of file that in some circumstances by here i think it's important to note that the parties don't contract over who is a public employee under the act that's something that the legislature decides so even if for example even after the amendments if the contralto wanted to voluntarily include these p s a's in a collective bargaining unit we could not do so it would be illegal they only have the authority that the general assembly  application because it said it doesn't reach back it doesn't say that prior to the law being passed that the doctors were participating in the unlicensed practice of law even though the convictions had occurred years before and also they weren't made to disgorge the profits that they had earned prior to the amendment taking the fact so that's the same sort of analysis that we're saying here that just as those doctors could no longer practice going forward once sound law was passed that these people are no longer in the union once that amendment was passed and the counselor initially thought the language was so near it's one sense that says p s a is employed by the contre are no longer within the definition of public employee that it didn't think it was necessary to go to the labor board to have them determine it because it is just clean issue of statutory construction there is no fact finding to be done no need for a hearing change mine once a year it's my mind as a hassle wh but it said that they were still required to file a unit verification petition because the board certified both both the inclusion and exclusion of employees from like party so even though the board found that they the contract was signed when they were legislation but that's one of the interesting things about the statutory construction argument you know that they never argued that this amendment was invalid or on past to shore or anything they're just saying that could have known what the expiration of these collective bargaining agreements with so so these cases i talk about with the doctor with the doctors having their license revoked we think that those are directly analogous  talk about those who are at least briefed but they chose not to respond to them in their reply brief for whatever reason i researched and i garnered my research and found my petition prior to initiating this initial litigation and you'll find from the very commencement  going to argue this case i i knew i would get upset and i tell you what i was going to do i got to tell you what i was going to be like i was going to quote a young jewish writer that wrote a line fifty years ago today and this year named i've lost every single aspect of this case despite the fact that was the only one simple straightforward  relations board has ever indicated why commonwealth edison why land why have any and wide foster wheeler isn't a political never have they indicated such the statute and yelling we should print court issued three different decisions to make sure that it was only equivocal how to do it there isn't there isn't any deviation for that's why yellowish supreme court has it