may please a court the issue before you today in general terms is whether the petition or the board first piece of the university of illinois violated sections fourteen eight and one of the illinois educational labor relations a when i refused to implement the comply with the provisions of a binding arbitration or the proper for procedure of whether a party has violated section fourteen eight by refusing to comply with an award requires consideration of three components whether the awards here there's no credible skew that there exist to well defined and dominant public policies in the state relevant to this case first the policy against violence campuses and second the policy against employment  institutions of higher education of individuals who gave them more intrusive conduct that violates common decency or morality or would have been convicted of an offense involving more turf for brevity purposes from here on out i refer to that public s now i don't believe that her decision went that far she was analyzing and heard susan she analyzed whether in that certain felonies she specifically talked about  these in africa judging investigation did enter into that last chance agreement in november of two thousand and six after became aware of the weapons conviction however the circumstances changed after their last change of three there was a renewed as for this on campus security of a new focus on the public policy for campus security following the april two thousand and seven shooting virginia tech and bag of the state statutes are actually modified amended following that effort university's renewed effort to address issues of campus security and it was as a result of that then it's the chancellor in her investigation situation determined that it was not appropriate for mr romney to continue his point because the fact that a paper was interested in that situation that following the virginia tech shootings that it was a matter of public interest their university made someone working for them and that ma no we're not going to enter into this last chance agreeing that he's going to be terminated i don't think you have any problem they have no proceeding like that place that i can see although when the chance of they become aware of the last change agreement that's when she conducted her own internal investigation policy exist whether or not there might have been procedures in place earlier through growth situation other words the existence of the public policy and bill of these two are in the willingness of the university but i don't see how you can argue to us that we can even consider that prior conviction of the time or when they rehired him after that and he basically worked his employment history was good parts evaluation his he got promoted he in a supervisory capacity his pay more punish chicago something that happened this renewed focus happened before he was given the last chance agreement no no let me show you the right last chance agreement was given the number on november second two thousand and six the virginia tech shootings occurred here for two thousand and seven and it was at that point there that statewide university of illinois began looking at their security practices of an individual that the record well under the campus security act as it existed in two thousand and seven there would be a question of whether in that mr morano would have been hired because he was in his position as those convictions because he was his garage foreman position was a safety sensitive position right that didn't require a criminal background check and also did not allow hiring of an individual that was picked unless the vice chancellor for that apartment made a special request through committee to look at the special circumstances of the crime and then a decision would be made on whether the higher so whether that mr morano would have been hired  there's no dispute that he was the he was convicted of felony and his convictions demonstrate that he's not above violence and then he had access to the machinery to carry out that  conviction and behavior post too great of a risk for the university for him to remain employed the reason this of his weapons conviction conviction as well as the nature of their conviction posture the most certain the fact that his weapons convictions was very recent suggested the possibility until your criminal behavior and was a risk to simply was not justifiable in addition dr manning was concerned over the nature of his crimes because the weapons created such a large potential for doing harm potential that may not otherwise public interest state and that is why course not give the drug compiler the opportunity to fight commercial airliner again even though no harm well as passengers and likewise courts will step bench or ensure that hungry nuclear power plant employee will not contaminate an entire policy issues the one they are one there's no requirement that they're directly related to this chapter anything and even if there is that they work because again it's a public policy against or to protect against violence on the campus or university campus it's not a public policy to address violence once occurs it's a public policy to protect against violence it's a policy therefore it's incumbent upon the verses take action before violence actually does took place on campus in any way harmed one danger if you have i employees or students or was committed in the performance of or in any way linked to his employment as a garage form and of course campus safety and camp you have tried to use the board and now this court i arguing the reinstatement decision is against public policy to do an end run around a person or a personnel decision it's chancellor came to regret only after being contacted by the media that reinstatement doesn't violate public policy just because the top administrator is confronted with questions from the press and a potentially embarrassing situation to the university the public employee doesn't get to avoid an employment contract where the last advised of that i knew of it when i offered and entered into the last chance agreement with him and furthermore there was no misconduct of any kind after the last chance agreement i brought no you have i wasn't against his employment until months later when the chancellor was contacted by a newspaper and the base potentially our public relations i shouldn't but i'm an employer doesn't get to out of an employment contract by using the public policy exception to arbitration awards instead you have my needs to live up to its employment contract and be accountable at the hiring stage and last chance agreement stage if that's their position not afterwards it's up to the university as a public employer to police its hiring practices and entry and offering into a last chance agreement as there is a supervisor in a public employment relationship i'd also like to point out that there was no law or university policy that prohibit you or buy from hiring moreno or for retaining him after knowing of his can reverse convicted and then the charge depending on what the details are of the attempted murder and prison time the sentence imposed by the trial court which is about concerned us other than background i wonder if the pre sentence investigation or the circumstances of that were fully available to the  to the university and if anybody asked the question is reinstatement didn't violate any of the recognize public policy issues because he had no violence or criminal activity on the part of or connected to in any way the job i don't before or after the last chance agreements there was no link between the employment and the criminal conduct i again hypothesizes the environment at some time in the future we're all concerned about campus violence and campus safety and of course we are but again we cannot rely on speculation assumption or unsubstantiated theories to make it an arbitration award regarding campus safety and security there was no evidence that there was an weapons convictions evidence it was evidence before the board on the stipulated record for the ceilings that what we look at on the very narrow issue as to whether an arbitrary who are violates public policy is whether there was a link with no difference whatsoever as far as we asked the university hired him he resigned they've rehired him and then gave him a last chance agreement now or faculty or their record issue goes to what the law is and the law says there has to be this link between off duty misconduct and the duties employee imposed by the employees thank you mr castro good morning may please the court your hours i was going to do that again with one of the union specific arguments that we actually don't feel that there is a sufficiently well established dominant express just that it on the union position is that the court is not it's definitely not required in every instance to wait until violence actually occurs to have a kid in arbitration and there there could be a finding that mr moran oh is that a greater likelihood of committing a violent act on the university campus then is anyone else who may be at the university campus if students of some other boy eight another member of staff  e from anybody else who would hold the same position who had no record this story as you are this is your right it might in the case of another employee however we have to remember that is immediate supervisor or one of his immediate supervisors mark donovan was aware of his work record aware of his conduct in the workplace up and if you look in the common law record five six there is a letter were marked donovan indicates that he was aware of the convictions for an awful possession of weapons in two thousand six and i was standing that based upon mr moran knows promotion to a supervisory position based punished work record he was going to give mr moran oh another chance a last chance agreement so the court can be reassured that this is this is not that the felony conviction in this case is not going to doesn't put mr moran oh in a different position from anybody else with with possible phone record most of the new convictions were based upon were predicated upon the nine hundred seventy conviction for attempted murder the judge viewed them as entirely predicated upon their prior conviction and therefore deserving of some leni it seems to me there have been some it's not right there's nothing more explicit in the record on that point taking up i do want to address this issue about the sufficiency of the policies raised by the university first of ask me cases in the only supreme court that the public policy must be dominant express ascertained from a review of statutes in judicial decisions in the constitution and  those say cases have contained had been ition language that says generalized considerations of public interest don't do it that's insufficient the legislature has to make the affirmative determination that this is a kind of that public policy in this case for example with review the campus security enhancement act that the two thousand and eight act it doesn't say anything specific about universities must terminate employees who have criminal backgrounds or universities must not hire employees who have criminal backgrounds what it says plain and simply is that universities have to develop emergency response programs and if someone's in a security sensitive position at a university you have to run a background check the campus security has been hacked doesn't even say that someone with a criminal background can't occupy a security sensitive position it just says you have to run background checks to the same extent i would like to point out own standards of people with criminal convictions can occupy security sensitive positions there's an appeal mechanism to the convictions record review committee for persons with criminal backgrounds who want to occupy those positions the prior argument days awards did in fact taken off felonies are created equal approach if under under her were virtually no one who was committed was committed a felony and was reinstated under an arbitration  operating machinery under the influence well they weren't in the court said there and they cased it was a spot phobic policy against operating dangerous under the influence but in that case the individual server trader the faculty staff students parents and the general public head concerned view of the university resulting from their employment continued employment agreement this is particularly true since there is an inquiry from a large newspaper in chicago regarding employment