employees in an industry affecting commerce.. .may be brought in any district court having jurisdiction of the parties.... 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). In order to ensure uniformity and predictability in interpreting the meaning of collective bargaining agreements, the United States Supreme Court has held that state law “does not exist as an independent source of private rights to enforce collective bargaining contracts.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 394, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 2430, 96 L.Ed.2d 318 (1987). Accordingly, a claim brought in state court alleging a violation of a provision of a labor contract must be brought under Section 301 and resolved by reference to federal law. Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202, 209-10, 105 S.Ct. 1904, 1910-11, 85 L.Ed.2d 206 (1985) (<HOLDING>) (citing Teamsters Local 174 v. Lucas Flour
holding state law claim preempted by  301 of labor management relations act only if application of state law requires interpretation of collective bargaining agreement holding that state court with jurisdiction over  301 claim should have applied federal labor law rather than state contract law holding that in enacting  301 congress intended doctrines of federal labor law uniformly to prevail over inconsistent local rules holding that any suit filed in state court alleging violations of a provision of a labor contract must be brought under  301 and be resolved by federal law holding that 5 usc  301 does not grant authority to assert an evidentiary privilege not recognized by the federal rules of civil procedure or the law of evidence