statutory excluded from members except for the few who is less than ten percent so you get a certain patient so we've now filed a petition so going back to the story so in this case the judicial position not only were we talking about tradition that doesn't exist in the statute we're now also talking about a procedure that isn't before us and apparently has been implemented and we'll have the opportunity to that really is the argument is it i mean on the tradition this is the way we've always done it in doing it that way we had the opportunity to have four five what our position was and now for either political or policy or reasons that involve this nuance that you talk about we're not getting here so the response to that is for the future maybe we have  point back to a good question and then and then those exceptions filed and then the board itself makes we don't have any of those judging obviously have to have an independent as to the d h s a l shape that judge's ruling on the very existence of the  position statement and the girls provide them with particular particular it this case because it's a majority interest case which is a fairly still fairly new procedure under the  purpose behind that was to eliminate the employer delay to take place under the traditional filing of for representation of election so everything is more expeditious they're seeking is there any reason why we should exclude these people from the protections of the act so that then is where somebody who wants to exclude them has the burden of bringing them forward and who else is going to have an information us would you agree with mr weiner that there has been a for more information when something is arguments did that would make you think well i need more information here now in this case if you're asserting that that employees are managerial as a matter of law what more factual information when you even have a hearing out what are you going to get there's no there's it's not it's not a fair it's now fair here and so now you're slowing down the process  general simply does not want slow down which is behind the whole majority of titian legislation because now you've got your foot in the door and i'm going to you know and it's it's we're going to do this piece manager as a matter of law you don't need a hearing cook county state's attorney took it from the to the case from the labor board and said we don't we don't need for the labor board to conduct a hearing here because we're looking at what the statute  state's attorneys are the power of the code with under the statute and so so is it only if your position is covered by a statute that i'm using the drill authority that would be a mantra as a matter of law those are you know  why is an employer if you believe that these employees don't people on why why or why not provide the information you have step one or as much as you hear yet step even under the prior representation it's always it's under the election filed for an election you're always you're always trying to get things you know it's supposed to be when you have a hearing aid ok this is what you're looking at in here's how you're going to make your decision under that framework and then you're going to cast that decision and we're for profit hospital the court decided that the attending physicians are not in general employees they exercise professional judgment discretion but they they course and they decide that on their own and sort of figured they'd do it but they're not going to decide this hospital now as it's policy is going to be performing only this procedure and this procedure and this procedure or now we're going to get  own collective bargaining rights because there has to be such a conflict that so on turbines to cut bargaining process there now we're going to think about they don't belong in the parking unit but simply because one group of attorneys well now that's going to determine whether these employees are somehow being a serial around somehow outside of the yeah when otherwise they have all of the same rights under the act that the employees who organize mr weiner's view that traditionally there were more hearings and that there has been some kind of change and from your perspective that change is ok because if it's within the act from his perspective it's where there is a hearing it's just a part an extension of invest investigation finds you know if there is enough that i know i need to hear employees say what they do i need to hear more evidence to see whether this is an appropriate unit i can't do this i'm papers that i'm going to hold a hearing to find out more facts the supreme court's words in the cook county state's attorney where they there was a statute and they relied upon the station but in addition presented and they said the station and the case law describing the law in addition to a statute not i agree with you there that i'm like some of your cases coming up like a zero g s human rights and pages and pages of regulations regarding their qualifications their experience support a managerial i came in as a matter of of of law of what we call the alternative test and in our you know the tradition but what set forth discloses that there is reasonable cause to believe that there are unresolved issues relating to the question concerning representation the board shall set the matter for hearing before diminished weight of luggage shale shale and i believe that belief that there's a basis for it similar there are only two circumstances where a majority interest even the jury interest the petition may be resolved without hearing first if there's a determination that it's inappropriate prevail and you and we were to affirm what happens next not in the cases that are in my line but a new case show us we file all the boxes tons of stuff like everything we have to prove our case in other words in order to prove our case even though we're law says we don't ever ask anybody to to prove our entire case to prove their case we have to do it