regard to the citizenship of the parties.”); id. § 185(b) (“Any such labor organization may sue or be sued as an entity and in behalf of the employees whom it represents in the courts of the United States.”). Yet the Supreme Court and this Court have held that an employee may sue for breach of a collective bargaining agreement without the union. See Groves v. Ring Screw Works, 498 U.S. 168, 173, 111 S.Ct. 498, 112 L.Ed.2d 508 (1990) (“Section 301 contemplates suits by and against individual employees as well as between unions and employers; and contrary to earlier indications § 301 suits encompass those seeking to vindicate uniquely personal rights of employees such as wages”) (quotation omitted); Smith v. Evening News Ass’n, 371 U.S. 195, 200, 83 S.Ct. 267, 9 L.Ed.2d 246 (1962) (<HOLDING>); Anderson v. AT&T Corp., 147 F.3d 467, 474
holding that a union employee protected by a collective bargaining agreement was in no different position than an atwill employee and could similarly maintain an action for wrongful discharge for reporting workplace safety violations 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 holding that union members had standing to bring rico claims for reduced compensation under collective bargaining agreement holding that absent a law or collective bargaining agreement a municipal employee is an employee atwill