743 F.2d at 1345. We made this distinction clear in Majestic Housing: In Painters and Decorators, “the rights and liabilities of both parties were determined by the bargaining agreement,” but in Majestic Housing, “although the amount of the mechanic’s lien must be determined by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, Majestic has no rights or liabilities under the agreement.” Id. Similarly, IBT has no rights or duties under the agreement, and thus Granite Rock’s tor-tious interference claim against IBT does not meet the requirements of section 301(a). Granite Rock makes an additional argument in its unsuccessful attempt to bridge this gap: that the “close relationship” between IBT and Local nion, Local No. 17 v. Commercial Prop. Servs., Inc., 755 F.2d 499, 506 (6th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>); Loss v. Blankenship, 673 F.2d 942, 948 (7th
holding that the district court did not have jurisdiction and remanding the matter to state court holding that the union owes its representatives a duty to enforce the terms of the negotiated collective bargaining agreement holding terms of collective bargaining agreement only a factor in weighing reasonableness of accommodation holding that a district court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over a nonsignatory to a collective bargaining agreement where no rights or duties of the nonsignatory party are stated in the terms and conditions of the contract holding that court had no supplemental jurisdiction over claim by shareholder for breach of merger agreement that was the subject of the dispute between the merger partners over which the district court had subject matter jurisdiction