arises under federal law only when the plaintiffs well-pleaded complaint raises issues of federal law.” Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63, 107 S.Ct. 1542, 1546, 95 L.Ed.2d 55 (1987). In certain limited circumstances, however, “[a] complaint which appears to be grounded solely in state law actually may be federal in nature, and thus removable.... [Tjhis exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule is necessarily a narrow one.” In re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation, 996 F.2d 1425, 1430-31 (2d Cir.1983), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1140, 114 S.Ct. 1125, 127 L.Ed.2d 434 (1994); see Hunneman Real Estate v. Eastern Middlesex Ass’n of Realtors, Inc., 860 F.Supp. 906, 909 (D.Mass.1994); 14A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Co 2d 511, 517 (7th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>); Hunneman Real Estate, 860 F.Supp. at 910
holding state law claim substantially dependent upon interpretation of collective bargaining agreement must be dismissed for failure to use grievance procedure or as preempted by  301 of labor management relations act recognizing the tort of retaliatory discharge holding that state court with jurisdiction over  301 claim should have applied federal labor law rather than state contract law holding a state court tort action for retaliatory discharge removable because it arose under  301 of the labor management relations act rather than illinois state law holding state law claim preempted by  301 of labor management relations act only if application of state law requires interpretation of collective bargaining agreement