legal consequences were intended to flow from breaches of that agreement, must be resolved by reference to uniform federal law, whether such questions arise in the context of a suit for breach of contract or in a suit alleging liability in tort.” Id. at 210-11, 105 S.Ct. 1904. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Applying that rule, the Court in Allis-Chalmers held that § 301 of the LMRA preempted a state law action alleging bad faith in handling a claim under a disability insurance plan included in a collective bargaining agreement. It is well established in the Second Circuit that “for preemption purposes, the term ‘labor contract’ includes union constitutions.” Wall v. Construction & General Laborers’ Union, Local 230, 224 F.3d 168, 178 (2d Cir.2000) (citations omitted) (<HOLDING>); see also Panczykowski v. Laborers’
holding union members state law claims for defamation against union preempted holding the state law claims were not preempted holding that plaintiffs state law claim against a nonsignatory to the cba was preempted by  301 holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law holding state law claims arising out of unions refusal to readmit union members preempted by  301