The chairman of the union's grievance committee has come to you for advice. Employee Curth has been discharged for falsifying an application for worker's compensation. He has filed for grievance which has been processed through the first three steps of the contractual grievance procedure; it remains unsettled, and, if unsettled, arbitration would be available at the union's demand. Although the grievance committee believes there is some merit to Curth's grievance, it has concluded that it ought not proceed to arbitration. This judgement was based on the fact that Curth's grievance is fact-specific, that an arbitration will consume a substantial proportion of its funds. The committee decided that it was more important to conserve those funds either for a grievance of more general significance or for the next collective bargaining negotiation. The chairman of the committee wishes to know whether, on these facts, the union is free to decline to take Curth's grievance to arbitration. What is your response?

See Barrentine v. Arkansas Best Freight System, Inc., 450 U.S. 728, 742, 101 S.Ct. 1437, 1455, 67 L.Ed.2d 641 (1981); Curth v. Faraday, Inc., 401 F. Supp. 678 (E.D. Mich. 1975). (If a court were to find this action by the union to be a violation of the duty of fair representation, what remedy should be ordered?)