In light of the arguments of the parties in this case, the Court has endeavoured to keep in mind this general federal policy of non-interference. Here, an international union is trying to reorganize the structure of its natives, a process that can be expected from time to time from internal frictions. If dissenting Aboriginal people could immediately repair in federal court for a second shot of the wisdom of any reorganization effort, the long-standing federal policy of non-interference in intersynscription cases would be reduced to empty rhetoric. At the same time, as Local 34 rightly points out, federal law sets certain limits on the broad autonomy of international trade unions. In this case, it is essentially the difficult question of exactly where the boundary between the two competing principles should be drawn. While, according to the existing agreements, Local 34 was solely responsible for its contracts, the Regional Council adopted statutes that put the latter authority in their hands. For example, under existing agreements, Local 34 elect representatives who sit on the adjustment committee in arbitration proceedings. Under the new statutes of the regional council, the regional council will elect these representatives. More importantly, Local 34 previously had exclusive control over contract negotiations. Under the new regulation of the Regional Council, this control is transferred to the Council.

However, the Court does not need to definitively resolve this difficult issue, because although the legal obligation of fair representation applies to intra-union membership directives, it does not appear to have been violated here. The duty of fair representation is violated “only if the conduct of a union… “is arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith.” Vaca v. Sipes, 386 United States to 190. Local 34 did not assert that UBC had discriminated in the organization of membership. Finally, the Membership Directive also applied to all local UBC residents in Northern California. Local 34 also did not provide evidence of bad faith on the part of UBC, as explained above. It`s on the last line of Vaca v.`s formulation. Sipes que local 34 – Local 34 argues that the Membership Directive was arbitrary. Here, Local 34 argues that, in its incarnation of belonging, it will not exist under either side of the NRL test.