employer obligation would cast a pall over collective bargaining as a technique for resolving labor disputes, for neither side could be certain when deals would bind the parties and when they would wholly or partially unravel with respect to many of those they purported to cover. The disruption that the plaintiffs’ proposed duty threatens is only compounded by plaintiffs’ suggestion that employers could fulfill their duty of translation by ensuring that unions faithfully communicated the contents of collective bargaining agreements to union members. It would be dicey to say the least for an employer to seek to compel a union to fulfill what the employer regards as the union’s obligations to those it represents. See NLRB v. Electra-Food Machinery, Inc., 621 F.2d 956, 958 (9th Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>). Nor could the employer step in easily on its
holding that employer overstepped its role when it refused to enter into written collective bargaining agreement because it believed unions entering the deal would violate union constitution holding that an employee may sue for breach of a collective bargaining agreement without the union 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 employer cannot enter into an individual contract if it would result in a diminution of the employers obligations in matters covered by the collective bargaining agreement holding that the disappearance by merger of a corporate employer which has entered into a collective bargaining agreement with a union does not automatically terminate all rights of the employees covered by the agreement and that in appropriate circumstances present here the successor employer may be required to arbitrate with the union under the agreement