parties in this case to address the question of whether the union have the right to appeal so that inquiry is going to guide the direction of my principal argument here today to be clear irrespective of whether the union has the right to appeal the result is still the same that if your court order has to be vacated and or reversed st if the court determines that the union does not have the right to appeal the district court order must still be  beloved to appeal do you think you are most closely and now i guess to a kind of surprising your twenty a day letter you seem to be saying that you fit in to cases that would characterize you as representing the plaintiffs members of the party but that we have a right to appeal as a party and the analysis behind that kind of dull bring to the novelty of this case the despite the so and in fact it was the plaintiff class as you point out you know who moved for it that's correct but the supplementary supplemental relief order does not in any form or fashion addr this case the litigation under which the cases s r o was established involves political patronage allegations against the clerk office we are content to allow the class representatives to litigate that case to enter into a supplement to relieve orders in whatever way necessary so long is it doesn't parties were agents of the class members who were trying to address separate issues so for example in the in the reynolds case they consequences for non parties procedurally there's a pretty well established path for ready people who believe they are adversely affected by an injunction to be heard and that's t intervene in the denial of intervention as appealable and interfere has appellate rights why do we need to create some kind of special rule here in this case your honor position that there is not a robust and that's no different from somebody who says this injunction is causing what say a party i have a contract with to breach my contract i've got a state l breach of contract but the judge hears you're here you're messing up our business and our life here we need to be heard certainly and i understand what you're saying in in there there has been there have been instances in the past in which we have utilized intervention to address issues for example when the doe case we intervened in the joe case in the district  and a termination of a couple one hundred of our bargaining unit members and so we intervened but there were a good few assert those rights because the s r o had no i had no indication that it was going to affect the grievance procedure or implicate any of the unions right under the collective bargaining agreement or anything of downs like you look for declaratory judgment action because you appeared in the district court and were heard on it but you didn't  e why it's not like it caught you by surprise you knew that the declaratory judgment and so we did we did know that the declaratory judgment had been sought but we also knew that the the state law rights as  mount in the district court but you didn't intervene and it feels a little like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too because you don't want to be a party in a district court because that's part of your challenge the district court order you say can't bind you as a nonparty but you want to treat you like a party for purposes of the appeal contractual relationship with acquired there is no demonstration or connection at all made suggesting that there was any efforts for the choir to utilize that relationship with to engage in political patronage but there was any instances of political patronage in the grievance procedure and it sort of redefined the labor act to allow a rd party to come into grievance proceeding was surely i i wouldn't say that it's expressway identified in the state law that it in that rd parties are exploited however it does contemplate relationships between the party section of the collective bargaining agreement that would be violated by having a court appointed monitor attend and observe strictly observe the grievance procedures and the union should not be allowed to obstruct the district court's special master called in this case a compliance and then a straighter stand because doing so would undermine the party's negotiated supplemental relief order and it would also threaten to promote prolonged federal court oversight of the court's employment practices  supplemental relief order that we're talking about today is one of a number of similar decrees and orders that have been entered in this case since two thousand and five designed to bring all of the defendants like the clerk into compliance with the existing shachtman decrees to the federal court oversight and the most important part of the supplemental relief order is the use of these independent compliance administrator and they're appointed by the court they report to the district court about whether the defendants are making good on their promises to elimi unlawful political discrimination this process has been successful for other defendants like the city chicago cook county cook county sheriff's office and others in the union should be allowed to hinder the compliance administrators passive monitoring of creedence procedures monitored grievance procedures at the city at the county they're doing so at the state level they're doing so at the substrates office at the county recorder gives office and there's never been any issue never been any problems there's never been any violation of confidentiality provisions anything like that and in fact since judge shankar entered this order the compliance administrator has monitored a number of human grievances that the clerk of the circuit courts office without any issues or any problems whatsoever and what's important here and why we we filed this motion is that this case is about as you know on off a political discrimination and that includes not just hiring people or firing people it also includes taking adverse actions in order to coerce employees into making political donations and so observing and monitoring and reporting for the court on these grievance procedures is a part of that to make sure that the clerk's office is not engaged not the union but to make sure that the clerk's office is not engaging in a lawful political discrimination in the grievance process and our hope is that the monitor will be there and will report that court orders and the federal court oversight is no longer necessary and part of that will be to ensure that there's no political reporting that there's no political discrimination in the context of disciplinary proceedings  permission from the county chairman to share that you were in the right political party in order to work someplace is it that open an obvious or is it just a matter of somebody said that they were forced to make a political political campaign things like that so it's both in this case the allegations and there was evidence supporting that both the people who were applying for jobs at the clerk's office were discriminated against based on whether or not they had made donations for campaign but there are also other is also evidence that existing employees current employees were being coerced to make campaign contributions now in this case the clerk's office confronted with that evidence introduced a settlement with the supplemental relief order so we did not go forward with discovery and find out the full extent of everything that was being done that's part of what the compliance administrator is tasked with doing she testified going out and investigating the employee fraction practices of the office and that includes not just hiring firing but also transfers reassignments over time and discipline to make sure that the offices rooted out the historical political patronage and  periodical record of what's going on to terminate compliance administrator would then issue a final report with the court saying yes i'm in agreement and here's why or saying no i don't think the office is ready for substantial compliance for sunset for these reasons and that would be part jurisdiction at this point but suppose the union said we dismissed this appeal the union goes back and notifies the district court that we respectfully disagree with your order  are not a party to this case or to the s r o we don't think you have the power to do this or grounds to hold us in contempt so with all due respect we're not going to allow the compliance officer and the district judge respectfully hold really in contempt imposes sanctions and stay them pending appeal we're right back here on the merits of these claims right well that's certainly a potential your honor but i would hope that it would not come to that but i think what's important for this court to consider is that those decisions about holding the union in contempt and what if any sanction is appropriate should be made in the st instance by the trial court and not by this court and so these procedures do matter and as the court race there is no reason to create some special rule in this case there is a process for the union to either file a motion intervene or the i don't believe it would be successful or you because the order doesn't really have any effect on many of your honor as you pointed out at the end in the argument that union is not evil side to single provision in the illinois statute that's being violated they can't fight the site to a single collect fairly by really have to be an intrusion upon a legal interest just to say we have we have a well established process it's confidential and it's it's important to us this is would need to make those allegations and present facts in support of that in order to intervene in this case as i said we have a long history of compliance administrators mongering just plenary grievance meetings without any interference this is not a case like in the compliance ministry it is not a receiver she's not taking over these employment actions and making the decisions she should clean monitoring them and reporting and in fact under the collective bargaining agreement the employees don't have to have union represent them the employee can file their own grievance and represent themselves or have somebody else represent to me a council and in that case the union is the itself is the passive observer monitoring what's happening in the grievance procedure to make sure that their collective bargaining agreement isn't violated or here we have a path you have to remember them whatever court order thank you  are not violated and that is well within the discretion of the trial court here after making the necessary findings and as i said this isn't the compliance administrator observing employment action to make sure that a muscle political discrimination i'm going to try to be as quick as i can st i do want to address the council's contention that in an employee can file a grievance on their own and take it up with a representation representative other than the union that is actually incorrect the employee can file it at the st that they are not permitted to have independent representation from another attorney and that process to the point that the compliance administrator half of that is actually also back factually inaccurate the compl administrators report recommended things to the coach office in how the clerk responded to us about the grievance process the reason why this is such a big deal is because of the union we have non lawyers  very much to the point about the motion to intervene would be not likely to be successful i think that's a pretty compelling point and i would also direct the court request that the court i refer back to the trans union corp