word there was a final order initially the court had made of a man i believe should do it and i had worked together to agree that other issues other than the central issue that where we have brief were would be final there were no other  and as sometimes is the case with more compositions there'll be remand but the remand is well as a function of certifying what the circuit court said and then you start the process of going back to the circuit court only to arrive determination after the circuit court rendered this decision and we believed there was nothing to be gained from that so we asked the court if they could we consider an issue of what we call final order so we could appeal here because the issues that we were going to address would be the dude i don't want to speak for him but there is nothing else to be decided for in terms of further benefits by the commission if it were to be remanded down to them so you know to come back down to the commission to only have them effectively by order of the circuit court and say well we were going to have to adopt the supreme court decision and go back to this record and come back here with everything up and a lot of it it probably does your honor us sometimes though no question but based on the supreme court decision there was nothing there were saying to the commission go back and reconsider this element or that element or for the determination of a period of benefits under the act and without that you should do it that light duty offer has to be part of something that was collectively bargained for the response of the village was well wait a minute maybe this is zarya doesn't have to take the light duty and i think that's correct actually no one in the state of illinois or anywhere in the world be interpreted in this country to suggest that t t d must be paid because mistresses area had that option to return to work or not i submit to you number one the c v a interpretation is not for the commission jobs just to benefit themselves in other words when you give a job as a you know a watching paint dry or something silly or we're going to give you a job that pays far more than an ordinary job a neck bessie's worth just to avoid higher exposure in that lee says that the work on commission is a statutory member under the commission it's an administrative agency but our general common law powers claimants autonomy to t t d is governed by the workers compensation at the commission is limited to those supposed to be made but the speaker the c v a and by the way we only have two pages of it we don't have the entire collective bargaining agreement which mind you if we did and i did ask on a rule of completeness i objected to the admission of the two pages that were committed but so be it the case  no dispute i argued regardless of the two pages we have and we're limited on the c p a in terms of what it actually says there's been no rebuttal or argument to suggest that it would address t t d what it doesn't say which is what i think mr  sears with a six million dollar judgment because they weren't offering light duty to work on claimants who were transitioning back to full duty it's pretty important so i submit to you first we should be considering these other statutes at all and the supreme court is telling us let's thoughts here the job itself that this man was doing was very productive it was within the fire department self the village and put him in some you know maintenance capacity or something he was doing ambulance that checklist and and stocking medical units coordinating  and frankly for everyone in this room if i chose to stop working tomorrow i don't get paid this is are you chose to stop working he doesn't get paid right and i think but you know a little thread of common sense  should compel the court to not only recognize the correctness of the commission decision but that it's the right decision considering that a man worked like duty was capable of it medically there's no dispute it was offered and he could have just kept working and he chose not you the commission decision should be reinstated thank you of review is wrong as set forth by him but i'm not going to rely on any case that i hold from my memory i'm going to rely on his brief and in his view or you get into the merits what are your thoughts about this court's jurisdiction  i take don't position i did not agree to jurisdiction because i have no power to agree to jurisdiction i can tell you that when the court issued its initial order there was a modification of the order that was made i wasn't given notice i filed them a month if you look a it's in the record i filed a motion to vacate that second order and then there was a third order which is found at page eighteen of the appendix that the court entered because my concern was i had a client who could never return to work scaffolding case and that on page one forty one of interstate scaffolding the court says since this involves interpretation of a statute and it involves application of certain facts to the interpretation of the worker's comp act it presents a day novo it's it it's an issue of law and the standard of review is no we've all we're talking about this court there are no dispute of facts we're talking about this court in true putting a contract a statute that says that that contract contract takes precedings over any policy stance rule regulation or a court decision once it's agreed upon by the parties  did or didn't do i think what we need to do is start out with a collective bargaining agreement because if you read the collective bargaining agreement it shows that the arguments are totally a and that the outcome is clear the collective bargaining agreement status quo there shall be there shall be no right duty or temporary administrative duty provisions or assignments for employee sustaining duty injuries on last voluntarily agreed to by the employee and the village and the village with notice of the assignment to the union if then goes on to read the right duty assignment shall not last for more than forty five calendar days without mutual agreement by the fire chief and the union president or their designees right the facts of this case are that my client's career ending injury ha over of two thousand and nine i think i told her twenty nine he received benefits under the public employee disability act for twelve months to the end of october beginning of november to two thousand and fifty five or sixty days at that point my duty under this provision ended unless the union unless the union agreed to prolong the period and the union that only really decided that to extend the period they did it in writing no less than two times by filing a grievance and by filing an advance of the grievance to the third step of the grievance procedure of the collective bargaining agreement and since a new the that the court the council reza going to point these out i really would suggest the court go to page seven forty one through seven fifty six of the wrecker and read the grievance filed  by the union to read the response from the chief and read the various advances of the grievance style of attrition arbitration has not been concluded because i don't represent the union but there are many many many grievances between this employer and this union but be that as it may even if there was anything in the record which there is not that mr says ariel was negotiating quote electing a light duty heat mr serial has no power to get light light duty the only entity with power to extend forty five days is the indian and the record is also clear that before this says assignments for employees sustaining duty injuries this clause applied only to workers compensation injuries if you're an oak one firefighter and you fall off your roof putting up christmas decorations and you need to go on light duty there's nothing in this contract that provides that the employer has to provide you any light duty there's no eighty eight consequence of this provision this provision was to give some degree of flexibility to the village to order pizza to get people back to late duty and this gives discretion to the village it doesn't have to offer a light duty if the village decides to do it and they employ in greece for the first forty five by after forty five days it says there shall be no light duty interstate scaffolding has nothing to do with this case this case is a simple case whe negotiated under section seven of the only public labor relations a a provision in the contract to give them a power they didn't have and now they're trying to manipulate the small power they didn't get to expand it that's that's this what's going on in this case since the light duty did bad exist after december twenty fourth two thousand and ten there was simply nothing for mr serial to refuse it didn't exist there was nothing to  any question as to be enforceability of bed collective bargaining clause of the as put to rest with section fifteen of the till my publicly relations act which i had poorly paraphrased to this court earlier in my argument it's quoted in all the briefs but it's clear that what an employer and in the municipal setting and of course interstate scaffolding was not and a municipal case that all my public and labor relations that wasn't involved anything that the parties agreed to take preceding this over any state statute and i will tell you that with the public employee disability it happens all the time i see collective bargaining agreements with police and fire where the period for peta is expanded contrac there are provisions as to how it's going to be administered so that happens all the time so in this case it's a said this is a simple case there was no right duty to be refused the reliance elevator argument that i made is simply ate a more traditional approach to calling this court's attention to the expressed terms of the collective bargaining agreement of the the work there was a factual dispute as to how useful the work was best not the point of my my argument on reliance elevate to the point of my argument is that the contract says there is no light duty after forty five days for the village to come up and say we've got light duty after forty five days is a sham it is it is an illusion and then the final case and by the way they didn't they didn't address this case in their brief they didn't address this case in their argument but if there was a illinois public labor relations act there is a case of moderate coal versus the industrial commission which i cited and argued in my brief this involved a coal miner who was on strike with the united mine workers for sixteen weeks  sack first or second day that he returned to work he sustained an injury and the employer took the position that in computing is there with weekly wage the sixteen weeks that he had no income should be included in the average weekly and they said that his this particular worker's failure to work world was available the only reason he did no work is the union said if you work we're going to find you and we're going to expel you and we're going to discipline you and they will i supreme court cannot be panelized for following the dictates of the collective bargaining agreement and the dictates of this union the idea that the union agreed again it's in writing read pages seven forty one to seven fifty six i think that that and that's the purview of the workers compensation commission it really is we are not to be considering other statute or not to be considering such if we are going to if we're going to open that door we cannot minimize as mr doodle would want to that my client every client in the state of illinois and everywhere in the country has to be very concerned with federal employment law and federal requirements on of the eighty eight and making reasonable accommodations to tell that the sears they paid six million dollars for not doing then and i'll go back and t honor i don't think at all one bit and that hasn't been litigated by them but again that's not for the purview of this court to determine whether the e e o c would or wouldn't decide something and it's interesting mr dudas says that there's a labor arbitration that is yet to be concluded there's a duty valid job duties a structured timeframe for work that was undergoing based on the chief's testimony there's no disputing that who's doing valuable work for the village if you turn that down just because you don't feel like it