from Local 254’s alleged improper secondary activity. Plaintiff argues that the International encouraged, ratified, and knowingly tolerated Local 254’s prohibited behavior. However, the evidence adduced by plaintiff fails to support this argument. Liability for a local union’s actions does not attach to an international affiliate merely because of the hierarchical link between the two unions. See Carbon Fuel Co. v. United Mine Workers, 444 U.S. 212, 216-17, 100 S.Ct. 410, 62 L.Ed.2d 394 (1979). Rather, a plaintiff must satisfy the traditional rules of agency law to saddle an international union with responsibility for acts carried out directly by a local in violation of § 303 of the LMRA. See United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 736, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966) (<HOLDING>); see also 29 U.S.C. § 185(e). The United
holding that deference to an agency interpretation is not appropriate where a statute is administered by more than one agency holding that  303 liability is established according to ordinary doctrines of agency holding that an employment relationship allegedly terminated with fraud and malice may open employer to tort liability beyond the bounds of ordinary liability for breach of contract holding that agreements established agency relationship holding that coconspirator liability for a  924c offense may be established under pinkerton liability