not a person for whom the collective bargaining agreement was made in other words she was not then a third party beneficiary but very green in the brief i call attention to representative won't poison performing electrical work within the jurisdiction of the union for the purpose of but apparently in respect to rates of pay wages hours and women and other conditions of employment and in this particular agreement there was a determining who or what is a third party beneficiary contract or who is a third party beneficiary federal law pre amps illinois law for purposes of that definition and best set forth in the cases  receive benefits received by going for wages and life but there's no difference in this particular case the truck or for whatever reasons you like to use the case of gallagher which was an illinois case in terms of defining what time there isn't much federal law on this point neither side has cited a great deal of federal law to these courts and obviously it is tempting to look at  for the principles that this character finds persuasive so i i think that though if we are going to look at federal law on this point we should look to see what the us supreme court has to say on the subject employee claims that the union owes him a more far reaching duty he must be able to point to language in the quoted bargaining agreement specifically indicating an intent to create obligations in forceful against the union  individual employees and you do not have that here mystere would have the court believe that all coy active bargaining agreements are for the purpose of the employees and therefore the employees look at just about any five departing agreement that you could review there are going to be provisions which are beneficial to the union members and which are beneficial to the employees but that doesn't mean that every employee is a third party beneficiary of every part and i think the evidence of that is that miscarriage and i have never found a single case anywhere in the united states of america federal or state law where unemployment was able to do what miscarriage is alleging i got hurt on the john i was an apprentice i don't feel as though i had my union was properly supervising me so i'm suing the union no one has ever been able to do that before in the united states and i think that if that was something that what if every union member was a third party beneficiary of their collective bargaining agreement i think that you would see that all of the time  beneficiary of contract if you look at the agreement itself any obligation to provide a dream and wireman supervising brightness was the obligation of the employer in this case merit there's nothing in the agreement to say that the union have that obligation to its apprentice and in fact if you look at the green as a whole i won't go over the whole list but on page nine of my brief starting on page nine proof there is an extensive list of all of the various things that the employer is supposed to do and clued ing in section two point one having not less than one journeyman on the premises a media only followed by a statement as to you're not guaranteed an apprentice and the ratio of apprentices to wireman is posting and if you look at the depositions that were submitted in this case in support of the various summary judgment motions there was testimony that if an employer had their way they'd have nothing but princes because the premises are cheaper and so there's a very specific system in this contract under which employers are told you have to have a steward and you're going to pay you have to have a certain number of journeymen and you're going to pay for it you have to have a certain number of folks over fifty five and you're going to pay for it and then there 's a provision that says and you have to send all this money to the union as a result of having had these union employees and so any requirement to your view of the supervision of an apprentice by