Before she was terminated for two alleged incidents of profanity, Cheryl Beck was employed as a scanning coordinator by Fry's Food Stores. Her employment was governed by the collective bargaining agreement between Local 99, United Food and Commercial Workers Union, and Fry's. The collective bargaining agreement prohibited the use of "profane, abusive or threatening language toward fellow employees." The collective bargaining agreement also provided that an employee could not be disciplined without "just cause." On April 13, 2001, Beck had a conversation with Bob Evans in the parking lot of Fry's Prescott store before reporting to work. Evans, an employee with whom Beck previously had a romantic relation- ship, had recently been promoted. The conversation became heated when Beck implied that Evans's recent promotion was due to favoritism, not merit. Evans subsequently submitted a statement to Fry's management accusing Beck of using profanity in the course of this conversation. No one else witnessed the incident. Acting upon Evans's statement, Fry's sus-ended Beck. Beck reported this suspension to Barbara Cleckner, Local 99's field representative. A meeting was scheduled on April 20, 2001, among Beck, Cleckner, and Fry's, for the admin- istration of any discipline. Prior to the meeting, Fry's management informed Cleckner that it intended to terminate Beck on the ground that 605 Beck had a "history of a foul mouth." In eight and a half years of working for Fry's and its predecessor Smith's, Beck had not previously been disciplined for using profanity. In her meeting with Cleckner prior to the scheduled meeting with Fry's management, Beck maintained that any statements made in the course of her conversation with Evans were not actionable because the conversation occurred while Beck was off duty. At the April 20, 2001 meeting, Fry's issued Beck a "Final Written Warning," which provided, in relevant part, that "any further conduct [involving] the use of profanity, inappropriate comments or malicious gossip will result in termination." Beck asked Cleckner to file a grievance contesting the warning. Cleckner promised to file Beck's requested grievance, but she never did so. On July 5, 2001, Beck had an argument with Cecil Carr, the store secretary, over a pay error. Carr asserted that Beck used profanity in the course of the argument, an accusation Beck denied. Fry's credited Carr's version of the incident and terminated Beck on July 9, 2001. At Beck's request, Local 99 filed a grievance contesting Beck's termination. Beck provided Local 99 with a six-page statement setting forth the basis for her grievance. A representative from Fry's Human Resources Department conducted an investigation of the events leading up to Beck's termination and provided Local 99 with copies of relevant notes, records, and employee statements gathered in the course of that investigation. In September, Local 99 contacted its attorney to determine whether it was legally required to demand arbitration of Beck's grievance. The attorney provided an opinion letter stating that, in his view, a single incident of alleged profanity would not constitute just cause for discharge. However, the attorney opined that an arbitrator would "almost certainly" conclude that termination for a second incident of profanity constituted just cause when the first incident resulted in an unchallenged written warning less than three months earlier. Local 99 subsequently informed Beck that it would not arbitrate her grievance. Beck then filed suit against Local 99, alleging that the union had breached its duty of fair representation to her. How should the court rule on her suit? Why? [See Beck v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 99, 506 F.3d 874 (9th Cir. 2007).]