wife had called police to get Rudish to leave the property. Rudish then played a recording of Duehr’s voice telling Rudish not to call his house at night. Other evidence in the summary-judgment record showed that Duehr was present at the hearing but did not speak. We find some guidance from the decision in Hardeman, in which a union member was charged with attacking and beating a union business manager. The union member admitted striking the first blow, and the victim’s testimony was fully corroborated by a witness to the altercation. The Supreme Court found that there was “no question that the charges were adequately supported.” Hardeman, 401 U.S. at 247, 91 S.Ct. 609; see also Mayle v. Laborer’s Int’l Union of N. Am., Local 1015, 866 F.2d 144, 145-47 (6th Cir.1988) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). Unlike in Hardeman, in this case, there was
holding union members state law claims for defamation against union preempted recognizing that the involvement of supervisory union members in union affairs conflicts with the need to assure the complete devotion of union negotiating teams to employee interests holding in a case involving not intraunion politics but rather a matter of an employer requiring the union to carry out the penalty provision of a collective bargaining agreement that the statutory term otherwise disciplined is narrowly confined to regulatory actions that affect a union members rights or status as a member of the union that the sanctions imposed were employmentrelated rather than internal union related and that the safeguards in  411a5 were not available for such action holding that there was abundant evidence to support the charge against a union member for helping organize a nonaflcio local union of a different name where the union member admitted at the hearing that he contacted local contractors for the purpose of negotiating a collective bargaining agreement for new union and serving as the new unions business manager recognizing that union members interests are adequately represented by the union