Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): for the purposes of res judicata.”); Heade v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., No. 09-02460, 2010 WL 938462, at *2 n. 2 (D.D.C. Mar. 12, 2010) (“Plaintiff’s contention that the arbitration’s findings do not bar her claim because she was not a party to that proceeding is also without merit .... [since] she was in privity with her union.”); see also Hitchens v. County of Montgomery, 98 Fed.Appx. 106, 114 (3d Cir.2004) (“[C]ourts have held union members to be in privity with the union and have held-that a decision against a union can bind union members in a subsequent action.” (citing Handley v. Phillips, 715 F.Supp. 657, 666-67 (M.D.Pa.1989); Stokes v. Bd. of Tr. of Temple Univ., 683 F.Supp. 498, 502 (E.D.Pa.1988)); Monahan v. Dep’t. of Corr., 214 F.3d 275, 285-86 (2d Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Meza v. Gen. Battery Corp., 908 F.2d 1262, 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that union members interests are adequately represented by the union (B) 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 (C) holding that a rico action by union members was properly dismissed where any financial improprieties occurred with union funds and directly injured solely the union (D) holding union members state law claims for defamation against union preempted (E) recognizing union members vital concern in preserving jobs for union members
Output (English): holding union members state law claims for defamation against union preempted