cannot now plead ignorance of those terms, regardless of the apparent conflict of interest in Mr. Pulliam’s conduct as a negotiator. Finally, we must point out one additional difference between the situation at bar and the line of cases, on which the Funds hope to rely, holding that collective bargaining agreements are exceptions to the rule of construction regarding promisors’ defenses against third-party beneficiaries. Those cases all involve some type of language or arrangement between the union and the employer that is unknown to the fund or trustees. In Schneider Moving, the employees sought to invoke an ADR clause that referred only to union and employer; an analogous situation is found in Local Union 597 v. Mosbeck Indus. Equipment, Inc., 856 F.2d 837, 841-842 (7th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, the court in Gerber Truck refused
holding that an employee may sue for breach of a collective bargaining agreement without the union holding that the present controversy concerns the plaintiffs rights under state and federal statutes which exist independently of the collective bargaining agreement and do not require interpretation of that agreement holding that a collective bargaining agreement to arbitrate is binding upon individual employees even when dispute involves federal cause of action holding that a debtorinpossession could reject a collective bargaining agreement holding the plain language of the collective bargaining agreement did not manifest an intent to require trustees to arbitrate contribution claims