Chauffeurs, Teamsters, & Helpers, Local No. 391 v. Terry, 494 U.S. 558, 564, 110 S.Ct. 1339, 1344, 108 L.Ed.2d 519 (1990) (citations omitted); Jarvis v. Nobel/Sysco Food Services Co., 985 F.2d 1419, 1422 (10th Cir.1993) (quoting Terry, 494 U.S. at 564, 110 S.Ct. at 1344). Hence, decisions arrived at via the procedures outlined in a collective bargaining agreement are ordinarily “accorded finality.” Id. Unless an employee can show that the union failed to fairly represent him in his claim against his former employer, the employee will not be allowed to pursue a direct action against his former employer for breach of the collective bargaining agreement under section 301. Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 186-87, 87 S.Ct. 903, 914-15, 17 L.Ed.2d 842 (1967); Mock, 971 F.2d at 531 (<HOLDING>) (citing Terry, 494 U.S. at 564, 110 S.Ct. at
holding dollar amount is not an essential element holding that proof of unions breach of duty to fairly represent is an essential element of employees hybrid suit 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 recognizing that the burden of proof is an essential element of the claim itself and that one who asserts a claim has the burden of proof that normally comes with it holding that proof of relevant market is essential under  2