U.S. 175, 195, 87 S.Ct. 2001, 18 L.Ed.2d 1123 (1967). Therefore, a rule may be shielded from the Act’s proscription if it “reflects a legitimate union interest, impairs no policy Congress has imbedded in the labor laws, and is reasonably enforced against members who are free to leave the Union and escape the rule.” Scofield v. NLRB, 394 U.S. 423, 430, 89 S.Ct. 1154, 22 L.Ed.2d 385 (1969). It is undisputed here that the union would have committed an unfair labor practice if, instead of denying non-members access to the Union appeal process, it had discriminated between members and non-members in the processing of grievances under the UAW-Ford collective bargaining agreement. See Oil, Chem. and Atomic Workers Int'l Union, Local No. 5-114 v. Moody, 295 N.L.R.B. 742, 1989 WL 224181 (1989) (<HOLDING>); cf. National Treasury Employees Union v.
holding that because plaintiffs were reasonable in interpreting defendants grievance procedure to apply only to active employees plaintiffs did not act in bad faith when they alleged that no applicable grievance procedure existed holding that disparate treatment of nonunion employee in connection with grievance procedure was unlawful holding that an ineffective grievance procedure bars employers defense based on that procedure holding that a jail inmate does not have a constitutional entitlement to an adequate grievance procedure and the ineffectiveness or even absence of a grievance procedure does not give rise to a constitutional claim holding that there is no legitimate claim of entitlement to a grievance procedure