there are two issues that i'd like to address the first of which is the t t award this cannot be supported by the record and i would say to you h c two twenty twenty one where the missionary himself says that  during the first period of time and was paid during the first heard of time and if he did work during the first temporary homes ability is not appropriate so that is against it when the evidence regardless of whether the video tape and a receipt from home depot showed mr bach purchasing plumbing supply but he admitted that he was engaged in his own company prior to that time so that period of the t v should also be performing a water heater exchange for his mother in law on a sunday that the company claims they had no knowledge of he didn't approve although mr boxer only had a water heater from four seasons and he took the water heater and some tools on a sunday to his mother in law's house within the province of the commission goes to credibility and believe the ability of the witnesses it absolutely is i agree with you however in order to judge credibility you need some basis now here arbitrator  sole reason for finding the way she did it was that she didn't believe mr the testimony of mr frank franco president of four seasons when he said i did not arise and i never agreed to it i commission indicates that she didn't believe his testimony and with respect to his wife's involvement in the company and with respect to whether mr buy was terminated laid off and how that occurred and she used that basis to say well if if if i don't believe his testimony and his wife's involvement and whether he remembers terminating mr bach then i don't believe anything he said back to his mother in law's house the following wednesday during this one show and he picks up the service to get the end of the four hundred fifty dollars payment he takes that during his lunch hour and  appreciated that evidence but if he had the original take it when he talked to the investigator then he could not have turned him the service to now we claim she turned in the service this look at some of the things about mr box test him when he was questioned about his work activities after being laid off and again i can i can say ages he he claims and he had an opportunity earlier on in the in the testimony of the he was a asked if you ever own your own plumbing company and his the answer was yes when was that his answer was twenty years ago he didn't do this credibility it took probably four or five pages of cross examination for him to finally come around to ok yes i have my own plumbing company and i've been doing jobs since i was laid off from this company so if the credibility should be taken any it is the credibility the petitioner because that even though the arbitrator says  done whether it was laid off or terminated and that's that's not something that cuts to the core of mr frankel's credibility and neither is the fact that he didn't want to talk about his wife's role in the company which at the time of the trial didn't exist  at what point then do we decide the commission is arrogant judging credibility because i think that is their province to do so i think that there needs to be some basis for the credibility decision i mean here we have a situation where no accident was reported and this is the manager of the company he didn't report of the accident he knows what the reporting protocols are didn't do it he went to the he writes the ticket so he can provide her with a warrant in the event something went wrong with the scratched and then water and he also says that he was she was selling a house in a couple years and he wanted to give end i think one of the tipping points in this case is who finished the job the brother or not an employee of four seasons not a licensed plumber finishes the job in a job related event you would have called four seasons and they would send somebody else out there finish the job it was a licensed professional plumber not done he knows better than that he's these but a member of the union for twenty or thirty years so all of these things in a service ticket was never provided to the employer and they could have brought be in with regard to the pricing  but he didn't do it and b didn't come in and the court wouldn't allow me to bring be an addition or should have brought b and to prove it he gave the service to them so if the service tag never got there at the money ever you see credit that's i mean i know my we gone through a lot of things with respect to you know how he may not be credible i mean he didn't follow the reporting procedures of the company he  you know he's doing his job on a sunday you know his own doctor says it's not work related and he would have you know you're arguing you're arguing with the finding of the mission that proof but i try all i wanted to do was get to the bottom of the case not trying to hide anything did he turn in the service taken or not and his own testimony says that he didn't his not there were so many witnesses in this case and trying to get everybody together at the same time was a difficult proposition but i have no problem with become a testified that i certainly would have entered there you know if i could  he went straight from our house to the shop turned in the take his motorola had the other two parts of it how often is impossible that he had the original copy a month later when he spoke to be invest gave investigator a pap how was that it's not it's impossible so he never turned in that and if you never turned in that take it you never turned in the money and frank fran the fact that he's got the original of the receipt that doesn't preclude he didn't turn into or hundred fifty dollars and she gave him the receipt back he never he never he never said that began he never ever company and i remember now the trial of her the company's the fund is gone and he didn't he wasn't clear about whether he terminated mr bach and whether it was laid off whether he gave up section to it or not and the funny thing whether he was laid off or terminated in september of zero seven mr hurd mr franco is uncertain about it does that make his testimony not credible i think if you is a read is either the copy that the insurance adjuster got was in color it was some color on the copy he could have only come from the original receipt he in my misreading the record or use it in testimony  did he present a receipt of what he presented on birth or the record before the court was responsible for or that we had two different versions of way my question was the blank one is color the original of the blank one topkapi the blank one is a certain color is this xerox copy that was presented during the testimony of the insurance adjuster the same when he went to talk to mr brock is a different color then the original yes the receipt for  a copy to mr schmidt ad was eight a faded read and that's the copy that mr bach gave him after he went inside and made a copy of the original so again if he if he had that at the time he didn't say made a copy of it anywhere he said he picked it up from his mother in law with the money and went straight to the company and threw it on bees that placed  mother she showed him the documentation and it was a yellow metal copy and the airborne bottom copy of that three part or so she did to me and mr black even he was still working there the company was still in force yes that's correct and he never went to check with de whether she got the original are the money or there was any how do you get on his desk and he says he never knew about it he never knew about the job and he didn't authorize it either just be the only person that would have known if it was turned in are gone or does was d and he never asked that question or at least he never testified whether he did or not