Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): still pending as of the time plaintiffs filed the § 301 action. The six-month limitations period for challenging a union’s action under § 301 begins running when a union takes an “unequivocal position” that it will not pursue an employee’s claim against the employer. Glass, Molders, Pottery, Plastics & Allied Workers Local v. A-CMI Mich. Casting Ctr., 191 F.3d 764, 767 (6th Cir.1999). In the present case, the UAW’s GM representative publicly informed Delphi employees on December 1, 2000, that the union did not object to the Delphi spin-off, the Trenton facility closure, or the SAP. As of this date, Zeek reasonably should have known of the union’s unequivocal position regarding the plant closure and SAP. See Chrysler Workers Ass’n v. Chrysler Corp., 834 F.2d 573, 579-81 (6th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). The plaintiffs did not file their § 301 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that hybrid section 301 action could not be maintained until plaintiff could fairly allege that the union refused to process his grievance (B) holding that timeliness of section 301 hybrid claim against union is measured from the date the internal union appeals procedure is exhausted or broken down (C) holding that the statute of limitations begins to run under federal law when plaintiffs knew or should have known of the injury which forms the basis of their claims (D) holding that a knew or should have known standard applies to triggering of statute of limitations for action against union in hybrid  301 action (E) holding that a cause of action accrues when the claimant knew or reasonably should have known of the wrong
Output (English): holding that the statute of limitations begins to run under federal law when plaintiffs knew or should have known of the injury which forms the basis of their claims