posting. (CBA § 16.9 (“There shall be no bidding for promotion to Operators ‘B’ in this manner.”)) Moreover, it is reasonable to infer that the Unions were aware that Williams was certified as B Operator in 2008 through the seven year rule in light of the allegations that Plaintiffs spoke to them about their grievance five separate times. (Id. ¶¶ 27-32, 36.) Capogrosso, 588 F.3d at 184 (Court must make reasonable inferences in plaintiffs’ favor on a motion to dismiss.) Because Union Defendants’ refusal to process Plaintiffs’ grievance was based on an interpretation of the CBA inapplicable to the facts of the Complaint, Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the Unions acted arbitrarily in refusing to file their grievance. Bache v. American Tel. & Tel., 840 F.2d 283, 291 (5th Cir. 1988) (<HOLDING>); Ehrenburg v. Outokumpu American Brass, Inc.,
holding that an arbitrators interpretation of the scope of the issue submitted to him is entitled to the same deference accorded his interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement holding that union could contractually undertake in collective bargaining agreement other duties towards member employees in addition to statutorilyimposed duty of fair representation holding that union policy of furnishing only its members with legal counsel in connection with grievances under collective bargaining agreement violated unions duty of fair representation under federal service labormanagement relations statute holding that a union may breach its duty of fair representation by rejecting an employees interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement if the unions interpretation is itself arbitrary or unreasonable holding that an employee may sue for breach of a collective bargaining agreement without the union