First, Wage Order No. 9 exempts US Airways from its record-keeping provisions in the same way that it exempts US Airways from its overtime provisions. See Wage Order 9, § 1(E) (“Except as provided in Sections 4, 10, 11, 12, and 20 through 22, this order shall not be deemed to cover those employees who have entered into a collective bargaining agreement under and in accordance with the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. Sections 151 et seq.”). Wage Order 9’s record-keeping provisions are contained in Section 7, and they therefore do not apply to US Airways because it has entered into a CBA which governs the terms and conditions of Plaintiffs’ employment.

The Magistrate Judge, in dispensing with said argument, noted, “[t]he term ‘representative’ is defined in the RLA as ‘any person or persons, labor union, organization, or corporation designated either by a carrier or group of carriers or by its or their employees, to act for it or them.’ 45 U.S.C. § 151 Sixth. Although the term ‘representative’ does include labor unions, Mr. Carmack has not pointed to any provision of the statute that would forbid MBCR’s treatment of him based solely upon his membership in the BLE.”

See SMF ii 3. American is a "carrier" within the meaning of Section 1, First of the RLA, 45 U.S.C. §§ 151, First and 181. See SMF ii 4.

B. Decisional Standards and Guidelines This arbitration was conducted in accordance with the requirements of the 2007 McCaskill-Bond amendments to the Transportation Act, 45 U.S.C. §42112. That statute applies the Allegheny-Mohawk Labor Protective Provisions (“LPPs”) (59 CAB 19, Appendix B, 45, 1972) to transactions involving two or more air carriers resulting in the combination of crafts or classes under the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. § 151, et seq).1 The two directly applicable Allegheny-Mohawk LLPs, §§ 3 and 13, require integration of the respective seniority lists by the merged carrier, in a “fair and equitable manner”; through a dispute resolution process of negotiations and mediation culminating, if necessary, in arbitration. (59 CAB 19, Appendix B, 45, 1972):

US Airways’ for J. on the Pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) (hereinafter, “RJN”)).) Case3:12-cv-05860-CRB Document57 Filed01/21/14 Page10 of 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- bargaining agreement under and in accordance with the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. Sections 151 et seq.” (RJN, Ex. A, Wage Order 9-2001 § 1(E).)

B. AN OFF-THE-CLOCK MINIMUM WAGE CLAIM SIMILAR TO THAT IN THIS CASE HAS BEEN HELD TO BE NOT PREEMPTED BY THE RLA. In Cruz v. Sky Chefs, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181321 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2012) Defendant Sky Chefs, Inc. moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) to dismiss Plaintiff Cesar Cruz's class action complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that all of Plaintiff's claims are preempted by the Railway Labor Act ("RLA"), 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. Plaintiff's right to bring the minimum wage claim was the sole claim in dispute and the district court was asked to determine whether resolution of the claim is substantially dependent Case 3:12-cv-05860-CRB Document 31 Filed 04/12/13 Page 13 of 14 14 RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS (II) CV-12-05860 CRB on analysis of the CBA.

(1AC ¶ 35.) In response to this allegation, US Airways successfully moved to dismiss the claim as preempted by the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. (“RLA”). (Feb. 19 Order at 7.)

45 U.S.C. § 151(a) states two general purposes of the Railway Labor Act: (1) To avoid any interruption to commerce or to the operation of any carrier engaged therein, and (2) To forbid any limitation upon freedom of association among employees or any denial, as a condition of employment or otherwise, of the right of employees to join a labor organization. 45 U.S.C. § 151(a) (emphasis added). 45 U.S.C. § 152(Fourth) further provides that Ano carrier . . . shall deny or in any way question the right of its employees to join, organize, or assist in organizing the labor organization of their choice, and it shall be unlawful for any carrier to interfere in any way with the organization of its employees . . . .@ 45 U.S.C. § 152(Fourth) (emphasis added).

2 Case 1:17-cv-01953-RDM Document 56 Filed 11/17/17 Page 5 of 25 1 INTRODUCTION In their Opposition, Plaintiffs attempt to rebut the Union’s argument showing that the instant case grows from a minor dispute over which this Court lacks jurisdiction. Plaintiffs also argue that injunctive relief should issue nonetheless if the Court finds a minor dispute although there is no evidence to support their contention that such an injunction is the sole practical means of ensuring compliance with the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. §151 et seq. (RLA).

Analysis of any such claim would require review and interpretation of the CBA. However, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to resolve disputes arising out of the CBA because such claims are preempted by the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. §§ 151 – 188 (the “RLA”). Bhd. of Locomotive Eng’rs v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 373 U.S. 33, 36-38 (1963).