seeking enforcement of the Recognition Agreement under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). Defendant contends that the NLRB has primary, if not exclusive, jurisdiction over disputes involving union representation. The instant case, however, involves a different question: whether the parties formed a binding contract. Although the Recognition Agreement, if found to be binding, may ultimately affect representation rights, the Union is not asking this Court to monitor implementation of that agreement. The Union is only asking for a ruling on the narrow issue of whether an agreement exists. The Court has jurisdiction over such disputes arising under § 301(a). See Smith v. Evening News Ass’n, 371 U.S. 195, 197-98, 83 S.Ct. 267, 269, 9 L.Ed.2d 246 (1962) (<HOLDING>). Defendant also argues that the Court lacks
holding that a federal district court may decide whether an activity is an unfair labor practice under the nlra when the matter is raised as a defense to a claim under an independent federal remedy over which the federal district courts do have jurisdiction holding that federal district courts have jurisdiction over violations of collective bargaining contracts even if such violations are also unfair labor practices subject to nlrb jurisdiction holding that gannon preemption does not constitute complete preemption for removal purposes because  7 and 8 of the nlra do not create jurisdiction in the federal district courts instead those provisions vest jurisdiction in the nlrb to determine unfair labor practices and state courts are as able to determine if jurisdiction belongs in the nlrb as are the federal district courts holding that congress referred claims under the labormanagement reporting and disclosures act not to the nlrb but to the federal courts even when the conduct at issue is also an arguably unfair labor practice holding that district courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts