(1) where the union has breached its duty of fair representation (the “hybrid” claim), Vaca, 386 U.S. at 185, 87 S.Ct. 903; (2) where resort to the grievance procedure can be shown to be futile, Glover v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 393 U.S. 324, 329-31, 89 S.Ct. 548, 21 L.Ed.2d 519 (1969); and (3) where the grievance process has been repudiated by the employer, Vaca, 386 U.S. at 185, 87 S.Ct. 903. See also Abdelmesih v. Waldorf-Astoria, 1995 WL 293634, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 1995) (stating that if employee is unable to demonstrate that union’s failure to process grievance was result of either the union’s breach of duty of fair representation or employer’s repudiation, failure to exhaust will bar the complaint); LaBuhn v. Bulkmatic Transport Co., 865 F.2d 119, 120 (7th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); Williams v. Sea-Land Corp., 844 F.2d 17,
holding that unions interpretation of a contractual provision necessarily favorfing some workers over others did not violate the duty of fair representation holding that where employee cannot establish unions breach of duty of fair representation in failing to process grievance he must abide the outcome of the contractual remedies holding that where an employee has never requested the union to file a grievance the employee can hardly argue a breach of the duty of fair representation on the unions part holding that in the grievance representation context an employee must prove that the unions acts tainted the grievance procedure such that the outcome was more than likely affected by the unions breach internal citation and quotation omitted recognizing exception to exhaustion requirement where the union wrongfully refuses to process the employees grievance thus violating its duty of fair representation