agreement hunts the two a breach of the agreement between the two labor organizations so what i don't understand is the focus of the c b a i thought i thought what this case was really about was an agreement secondary to the first obligation which arises person to the collective bargaining agreement so how can there be an obligation that arises to use your language as soon to be put the bargaining agreement if local seventy four isn't a party to the collective bargaining agreement i thought that the key here is there is this there is this agreement that we have between these two labor organizations and it is whatever obligations that arise from that agreement that have been breached and that lead three thirteen two i was this money well i think there are two steps to it yes there is this secondary contract to forward the deducted pursuant to the first contract and there can be standing for a labor organization to stand as a third party beneficiary to a collective bargaining agreement and in this situation local seventy four beneficiaries are not an unusual situation for reach between three thirteen and seventy four i'm sorry what was the contract reached between three thirteen and seventy four well that element of it is an implied contract it's not right so it's not a colleague cyrus wondering who made this contract who could you point to to say yes these are the people who negotiated these returns and having spent a few minutes on this and not getting a who i take it that your answer is in effect  look at the policy against free riders it makes no sense to me i can't believe that union seventy four local seventy four was entitle to get all of its views to its members and nothing  have right in the two thousand and eight to eleven c b s his is now expired and gone yes right so what's left if you can't get money and you can't get it injunction because the thing is over and three o two at this point look at seventy four numbers continue to work in this facility and look at three thirteen continues to seek yeah but you know who i thought correct me if i'm wrong but didn't you take that square that circle for me all right how could we find for you under through two consistent with what's been decided in the administrative procedure because three o two  dispute that three years and years and years is operated just the way seventy four is described right it did ok so if we look at section ten  and it says referring specifically to local seventy four that there bylaws are going to control as if they were in the shoes of the thirteen for purposes of that section we look at that there's this purpose of this language in the contract was supposedly if you give it what argument that mr mills is giving it is to protect members and get essentially into the question of whether in fact members are protected not t union because this is an imprint to unions local flook unless seventy four has no representational status it does not represent anybody for purposes of wages or hours or negotiations or grievances it has no representational status in fact if you look at the language of the contracted a nurse the individual employees benefits not the union's benefits because it's not the collective bargaining representative this case is really unique in respected strong unions fighting about a contract  case they look at the contract see if they look at the course of feeling look at the contract they come to different ideas about what the contract yes ok so  have to smart capable thoughtful judges looking at the same language and coming to very different conclusions doesn't that indicate that maybe you have a leg which is less than clear that there are some ambiguity in that language that we use war thoughtful people absolutely opposite conclusions both parties in this case got the benefit of a lot of judicial thinking  judge sleep but the fact of the matter is judge smee we view as having essentially looked at this and having construed all the sections of the contract together while the magistrate challenge essentially read out of existence the meaning to all the provisions but i don't see how your argument leads to the conclusion that it alleviates the tension because doesn't that doesn't the treat these people we have to look to the byelaws but we can't work that much we've got a really pay attention to agency shot contribution stuff and tell me and give that dominance because of the query of the language  judge fleet's view and because the free writer had a free rider policy of labor law yes i mean i understand his reasoning i think but i don't understand your assertion that it doesn't meet any a penny either our intention they are that there's a question about what this contract means doesn't that course of dealing imply any things about what was actually agreed between the parties shouldn't it inform that understanding right says when it comes to that everybody has to be a member of the union which is a defined term meaning three thirteen yes and then it says expressly for purposes of this provision membership in good counsel has put before us which is the supreme court has repeatedly said membership means dues paying yes that's the law alright then the words membership in good standing here means ship is membership which section seven recognized membership in a labor union like seventy four that they were not three thirteen people they were seventy four people but those that compel a conclusion based on past practice got to be forwarded over and put everything else out of our myla course of healing and in determining whether there is a year with louis or are we allowed to consider all these other things including here the fifteen year course appearing in trying to decide whether there's ambiguity our position is you don't have jurisdiction begin with because this case was brought under three alone in three o two in the national labor relations act and as such that they can or section three up to which they are suing under four hundred six thousand dollars judgment actual recognized collective bargaining representative here this is not the recognized collective bargaining representative and you get into the whole separate issue of can you essentially have a check up the authorization and the other thing i would ask is look at the n l r b decision before you be employed there without running afoul of the union security clause by pain of dues which is all that membership within the context of that type of clause allows businesses anything does it say anything or mean anything about whether or not think it's clear from the outset that with the understanding between these parties by the behavior that they've admitted to are you seeking to view this has as two separate contracts and then there is an oral contract and seems really the better analogy is that for thirteen years without without giving them a twenty at all because he had to get a hot dog and one time they said hey now wait a second if you want the hot dog we want some for thirteen years we gave them all the money but we stopped and there's nothing unlawful about that we are entitled to do it that is what i take their argument to be i don't see how one can construe the collective