652, 85 S.Ct. 614, 616, 13 L.Ed.2d 580, 583 (1965). They submit, however, that they did attempt to use the grievance procedure but were unsuccessful in their efforts because the union effectively refused to pursue a grievance for them. They conclude, therefore, that their claims are excepted from the requirement of exhaustion. In Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 184-85, 87 S.Ct. 903, 913-14, 17 L.Ed.2d 842 (1967), the Supreme Court identified a number of exceptions to the exhaustion requirement of § 301, including an exception for cases in which “the employee-plaintiff has been prevented from exhausting his contractual remedies by the union’s wrongful refusal to process the grievance.” Id. at 185, 87 S.Ct. at 914. See also Rabalais v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 566 F.2d 518, 519 (5th Cir.1978) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs argue that because they attempted
recognizing exception to exhaustion requirement where the union wrongfully refuses to process the employees grievance thus violating its duty of fair representation recognizing limited exception to general rule when insurer wrongfully refuses to defend its insured 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 recognizing that issue exhaustion requirement and requirement exhaustion of remedies are different