there's at least here dozen cases that have been decided the last twenty years on this very point every one of these cases cited almost the exact same fashion on the exact same facts and in this day and age when we have local news of government to municipalities really struggling financially to do through this drill of having to defend these types of proceedings which the law seems to me to clearly indicate that the sergeants are our statutory supervisors on these facts this record the evidence is completely and contradictory it just seems to me that is a real waste of government resources of everybody's resources to have to go back and have  go but from the standpoint of you know really doing justice in what what rationale really could there be when you've got half a dozen cases that all turned on the same point and this record is twelve hundred pages long containing all the same evidence if not more evidence this is one contradicted here there's nothing i mean if the other if the union or the attorney general's office could really point to something in this that's well i mean that's another issue that i suppose we could talk about i mean i am a little puzzled by some of the cases that discuss the standard of review of those cases because my experience is that when you have a set of undisputed facts to be applied to the finding this whatsoever you know i mean maybe asked for some materials we provided a letter of michigan position statement and then requested documents and we provided the documents and must see if within twenty four there was nothing that issued after that within twenty four be i don't know a rush to judgment the earth doesn't seem to be a museum circuit to a denial to process and there was no process nobody could possibly read the letter of that period of time anyway how could they tell us that something was missing or unresponsive when there wasn't even turned on to show that the sergeants or supervisors are in one category after another it's all there and all you get back twenty four hours later is an order certifying here that you know better seems pretty grossly improper to framework it's very straightforward it's basically a three part test in the book initially at whether the work of the surgeon performed is substantially different than the work that the rank and file performs the record contains the job descriptions of the sergeants question of whether they are exercising some choice between different avenues of authority they can that they can take there seems to be some issue as to the rule of the confidential on where the person who is in the confidential matters information more specific really i suppose they could turn up in agreements and therefore that's the kind of information that would set up the conflict that internal affairs officer with inevitably face and so for that reason we offered that information on a protective order redacted basis and i guess it's another example here of a situation where the hearing officer did not make any response to that whatsoever and we did provide the descriptions of the general orders that are in there that govern precisely what the internal affairs officer does and that person's job description who they interface with which is a person who negotiates labor contracts the back and forth that's all over there and so for purposes of this proceeding i think there was point where the hearing officer told us our position statement wasn't enough and you needed to provide documentary documentary evidence i mean a fair point when you're already laid out in quite a bit of detail and so i think it's about a twelve fifteen page but that explains everything page letter and the judge read that and said well you struck one you can tell me what i need to know and he asked for various pacific and clear definitions of what she wanted there after because th drive the the decision what happened here was is that the end of the l g a asked for specific information and then that the management didn't provide her as i think she expected she said i'm willing to is that the employees get to choose the the new thing they prefer to be represented by who they prefer it's the exception it's supposed to be when there's a supervisory objection so to the possible example the question for the hearing officer is not whether it happened wants it's what is the authority of this person and as she says not letter i mean examples for all because that's what the board looks for they want to see that people do this fairly routinely not exceptional say how many times have you sergeants made this decision and what happened afterwards though the kind of things that go to hearing the justice of grievances if you read the letter they say in your letter that in one instance confidentiality and i really want to make sure i get this point in with a great confidentiality i don't think the sheriff has any argument here to make it off the confidentiality exception is about collective bargaining in the process internal affairs s lots of things because they're doing internal affairs work but they need to be assisting the employer in the collective bargaining for labor masturbations and that's not what they're saying happened here so it makes perfect sense to me that the le i want to respond to the procedural issue and i want to talk a little bit about the question of finale of the standard of review because there's something that comes out of the union's brief mention of page fifteen at the bottom  because you know it's not like we made a mistake and didn't submit enough in here these parties are here complaining that they didn't get a chance to submit evidence to the board so i think the problem is the board and it's a legal error that the board appears to make use if will empower the showing of interest and will resolve the unit appropriateness and exclusion issues through its hearing process here that's a pretty clear statement of the  hearing and proceeding to decision without having done have committed an error of law that requires this court to reverse on the basis of the record business scales right now that's how it can get to the point of