301. “ ‘First, the district court must examine whether proof of the state law claim requires interpretation of collective bargaining agreement terms.’ ” Ibid, (quoting DeCoe v. General Motors Corp., 32 F.3d 212, 216 (6th Cir.1994)). “The second step requires a court to ‘ascertain whether the right claimed by the plaintiff is created by the collective bargaining agreement or by state law.’” Ibid. Both criteria must be satisfied to avoid preemption. The plaintiffs claim plainly arises under the HRP, which was created by the collective bargaining agreement. The problem with the defendant’s argument is that the plaintiff has brought no state law claims. His argument for relief is based solely on ERISA, a federal statute that itself contains express preemption provisions b h Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). The LMRA does not preempt the plaintiffs
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 holding that an employees state law claim against employer for breach of settlement agreement arrived at by virtue of grievance process established by the collective bargaining agreement was preempted by labor management relations act holding state law claim preempted by  301 of labor management relations act only if application of state law requires interpretation of collective bargaining agreement holding that state law claim regarding breach of settlement agreement was preempted by federal labor law holding that former employees state law claim of fraud brought against his former employer was preempted by labor management relations act