Amicus Curiae Brief — Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Association of Flight Attendants

> = Supreme’ Court, U.S,

4) FILED

No. 89-459 OCT 18 wes

IN THE ee ee

Supreme Court of the Gnited States

OCTOBER TERM, 1989

DELTA AIR LINES, INC.,

Petitioner,

ASSOCIATION OF FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, AFL-CIO,

Respondent.

On Petition For Writ of Certiorari

To The United States Court of Appeals

For The District Of Columbia Circuit

BRIEF OF THE AIRLINE INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS CONFERENCE AND THE AIR

TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA AS

AMICI CURIAE SUPPORTING CERTIORARI

ROBERT J. DELUCIA

(Counsel of Record)

AIRLINE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

CONFERENCE

1920 N Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

(202) 861-7552

Davip A. BERG

AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF

AMERICA

1709 New York Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

(202) 626-4234

Counsel for the Airline Industrial

Relations Conference and the

Air Transport Association of

America as Amici Curiae

October 18, 1989

PRESS OF BYRON S. ADAMS, WASHINGTON, D.C. (202) 347-8203

wn

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether, under the Railway Labor Act, a union

grievance which seeks damages for a claimed breach

of a collective bargaining agreement’s successor

clause—purportedly requiring a merged airline to rec-

ognize the union as the representative of a minority

group of employees after a merger—raises issues of

employee representation within the exclusive jurisdic-

tion of the National Mediation Board.

2. Whether the National Mediation Board’s decision

terminating the union representation certification of

the acquired carrier’s union, as of the date of the

merger, renders moot the union’s request to arbitrate

a grievance involving representation issues under a

successor clause.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ........:ssseceeeeeeeeeeeeseneeeneenes

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES. .........::sccescceeceeeeeeeeerereeees

INTERESTS OF THE AMICI CURIAE ........:::se0eee0:

SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR GRANTING THE

WHET cccrcccccsinscccsccccscoccessccesssssccsnecannonsnasenabosseanneesnines

ARGUMENT .......cccccccccccscccccccccccceccescssccsccssccsccccoseress

STABLE AIRLINE LABOR RELATIONS AND ECO-

NOMIC GROWTH NECESSITATE THAT THE AIR-

LINE INDUSTRY HAVE A SINGLE FORUM—THE

NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD—WHICH RE-

SOLVES ALL QUESTIONS OF REPRESENTATION

RAISED BY MERGERS AND OTHER TRANSAC-

TIONS .ccccccoccseccocscssscccccsccscccesscesconsessnecssnsssossoeconeeses

A. Mergers and Corporate Transactions In The

Airline Industry .............::sccsesesseeeeeeensereenenes

B. Representation Issues In Airline Mergers and

Corporate Trans=ctiOns .........sceeseeeseeeeeesees

C. The D.C. Circuit’s Opinion Upsets Well-set-

tled Law and Creates Uncertainty and Un-

senccee ris J With Respect to Airline

epresentation Disputes .........ssecseseseeereeees

CONCLUSION .......0cccssccsccscccccrecccccesersccssccsscscceccscsens

APPENDIX ......cccccccsscccccccccccscccscccscesccsoscssacsosssosecsores

ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES: Page

Air Line E.aployees Association v. Republic Air-

lines, Inc., 798 F.2d 967 (7th Cir.), cert. denied,

PN EI ss ccsccccocesevecéocconscossencesseeees 5,9

Federal Express/Flying Tigers, 16 NMB 433

Nee asic sccdcorsceesasonacsnnicwanscovnrcovencs 10

Frontier/Frontier Horizon, 11 NMB 138 (1984) .... 10

International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Texas In-

ternational Airlines, Inc., 717 F.2d 157 (5th

acca c cs nckacacsnssescenbassoervvoeeees 9,12

Metro Airlines, 16 NMB 353 (1989) ..0.00......00cc000-- 10

Northwest/Republic Airlines, 13 NMB 399 (1986) . 10

Republic Airlines/Hughes Air West, 8 NMB 49

Ne ait piecusccucberdavedbsescenbstecsconcsevecs oes 9,11

Switchmen’s Union v. National Mediation Board,

TITS MII soccccscaccsccsvevsnenonevsverseneoveese 3

Transamerica/TransInternational, 12 NMB 204

eisai cnbicasssuncécesenseinvesevevessssswesess 10

USAir/Pacific Southwest Airlines, Inc., 15 NMB 135

Tee i seencvnssinone 9

Western Air Lines v. International Brotherhood of

Teamsters, 480 U.S. 13801 (1987) oo... eeeeeeeee 5,9

STATUTES:

Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. sections 151-188

a sccnisus passim

MISCELLANEOUS:

Air Transport 1988, The Annual Report of the U.S.

Scheduled Airline Industry ............0:ccc:cccescceeee 8

iv

Table of Authorities Continued

Page

Procedures For Handling Representation Issues Re-

sulting From Mergers, Acquisitions or Consol-

idations in the Airline Industry, 14 NMB 388

(1987) ......cssssscccsssereeeeessrecesesseessscnereeesssensesensserss 5,11

IN THE

Supreme Court of the Gnited States

OCTOBER TERM, 1989

No. 89-459

DELTA AIR LINES, INC.,

Petitioner,

i

ASSOCIATION OF FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, AFL-CIO,

Respondent.

On Petition For Writ of Certiorari

To The United States Court of Appeals

For The District Of Columbia Circuit

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE

THE AIRLINE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS CONFERENCE

AND

THE AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE

Pursuant to Rule 36 of the Rules of the Supreme

Court, the Airline Industrial Relations Conference

(AIRCON) and the Air Transport Association of

America (ATA) file this brief as Amici Curiae in sup-

port of the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari of

Petitioner Delta Air Lines, Inc. (Delta).! AIRCON and

ATA adopt and support the arguments of Petitioner

Delta that the National Mediation Board (NMB) has

exclusive jurisdiction over all representation disputes,

regardless of the context in which they arise. AIR-

CON and ATA file this brief amici curiae in order to

emphasize the importance of this matter to airline

industry labor relations and to provide the Court with

the special history and perspective of the airline in-

dustry.

AIRCON and ATA have a substantial interest in

the disposition of this case. AIRCON is an unincor-

porated voluntary association of twenty-one United

States scheduled air carriers formed to facilitate the

exchange of ideas and information concerning per-

sonnel and labor relations matters. AIRCON repre- °

sents its member air carriers with respect to related

legislative, judicial and administrative proceedings.

ATA is a Washington based trade and service asso-

ciation of twenty-one United States airlines and two

Canadian airlines. The membership of AIRCON and

ATA include every major air carrier in the United

States.2 Because AIRCON and ATA air carrier mem-

bers are covered by the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C.

sections 151-188 (RLA), they will be directly and sub-

stantially affected in their labor relations by the res-

olution of this case.

The decision of the D.C. Circuit creates uncertainty

and unpredictability with respect to the rights and

1 Letters of consent from all parties to the filing of this brief

have been filed with the Clerk of this Court.

* AIRCON and ATA member carriers are listed in the Ap-

pendix.

- oc in

obligations of parties covered by the Railway Labor

Act involved in transactions such as mergers, acqui-

sitions, and asset sales. An interpretation of the Rail-

way Labor Act which permits unions to arbitrate

disputes involving representation issues, albeit under

the guise of breach of contract claims for monetary

damages, would deprive the industry of its well-es-

tablished reliance upon the National Mediation Board

as the sole forum for resolving all representation is-

sues. If forced to adjudicate representation related

claims in a multitude of forums, one of the key fea-

tures of the RLA, which has been relied upon by

unions and employers alike,, would be severely un-

dermined. Since it is likely that the industry will be

involved in many transactions which may raise rep-

resentation issues in the coming years, it is important

that parties be able to predict with some degree of

reliability what their rights and obligations will be in

connection with any potential transaction. Reversal of

the D.C. Circuit’s unprecedented decision is of fun-

damental importance to fulfill the RLA’s purposes of

creating uniformity, stability, and predictability in air-

line and rail labor law. For these reasons, AIRCON

and ATA respectfully submit this brief as Amici Cur-

iae.

SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

Prior to this case, the uniform body of authority

had made clear that the NMB has exclusive jurisdic-

tion over all claims that entail issues of employee

representation. This Court’s rulings in Switchmen’s

Union v. National Mediation Board, 320 U.S. 297

(1943), followed by subsequent appellate and district

court cases, have definitively held that representation

8

disputes are outside the jurisdiction of federal courts

and private arbitrators. Although AFA - and the D.C.

Circuit - characterize this dispute as a grievance rais-

ing breach of contract issues, the subject matter of

the dispute is a disagreement regarding the rights

and obligations of a labor organization and an airline

with respect to representation of the airline’s em-

ployees following a merger. The merit of AFA’s dam-

age claim is dependent on a determination that AFA

was entitled to continue as the post-merger repre-

sentative of the Western flight attendants. Therefore,

the dispute is inextricably intertwined with represen-

tational issues, which only the NMB can resolve.

In the airline industry, it was previously well-settled

that labor and management were required to refer

all representation disputes arising out of mergers and

other corporate transactions to the NMB. Throughout

the post-World War II era, air carriers have engaged

in over 30 mergers out of which have arisen numerous

representation claims. These representation claims

have been decided by the NMB - not by arbitrators

or federal courts, even though almost every airline

union contract contains some provision upon which a

claim of successorship could be raised. By having a

single forum where these issues can be determined,

the parties have been able to resolve these disputes

with finality and reliability. This has avoided the un-

certainty and fragmentation of jurisdiction and bar-

gaining units that can result in unnecessary labor

strife in industries covered by the National Labor

Relations Act. In so doing, it has benefited carriers,

employees, and the public.

Failure to reverse the D.C. Circuit’s decision would

radically alter the previously well-established law and

ow tl

the airline industry’s approach to transactions which

raise representation issues. The possibility of open-

ended damage awards would affect the manner in

which parties structure transactions, just as surely as

would injunctive or declaratory relief. The D.C. Cir-

cuit’s decision would fragment the jurisdictional

framework for representation matters, and lead to

labor instability, split bargaining units, and legal un-

predictability. That result is antithetical to the labor

policies embodied in the Railway Labor Act.

ARGUMENT

STABLE AIRLINE LABOR RELATIONS AND ECONOMIC

GROWTH NECESSITATE THAT THE AIRLINE INDUs: iY

HAVE A SINGLE FORUM—THE NATIONAL MEDIATION

BOARD—WHICH RESOLVES ALL QUESTIONS OF REP-

RESENTATION RAISED BY MERGERS AND OTHER

TRANSACTIONS.

In the airline industry, all representation disputes

arising from mergers and other corporate transac-

tions have been handled by the National Mediation

Board. This is consistent with the universally recog-

nized legal principle that the ‘““NMB alone is vested

with the final decision-making authority over repre-

sentation issues.’’ Procedures for Handling Represen-

tation Issues Resulting From Mergers, Acquisitions

or Consolidations in the Airline Industry, 14 NMB

388 (1987) (NMB Airline Merger Procedures); see also

Western Airlines v. International Brotherhood of

Teamsters, 480 U.S. 1301 (1987) (J. O’Connor); Air

Line Employees Association v. Republic Airlines, Inc.,

798 F.2d 967 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 962

(1986). The D.C. Circuit’s decision, by fragmenting

the adjudicatory process with respect to representa-

tion issues, has thrown this previously settled area of

«tierce reel

law into question. With hundreds of millions of dollars

at stake in these transactions, along with tens of

thousands of jobs, the potential impact of the D.C.

Circuit’s misapplication of the law should not be

underestimated.

A. Mergers and Corporate Transactions In The Airline

Industry

Since 1945, there have been over 30 airline merg-

ers. Most of today’s carriers are a product of past

mergers over many years. A partial list of the current

airlines and their merged entities would include:

Alaska - Jet America

American - Air Cal, Trans Caribbean

Braniff - Florida Express, Mid-Continent

Continental - New York Air, People Express,

Pioneer, Texas International

Delta - Chicago & Southern, Northeast, Western

Eastern - Colonial

Federal Express - Flying Tigers, Seaboard, Slick

Midway - Air Florida

Northwest - Bonanza, Challenge, Hughes Air

West, Monarch, North Central,

Pacific, Republic, Southern, West

Coast

Pan Am - American Overseas, National, Panagra

TWA - Ozark

United - Capitol

USAir - Empire, Lake Central, Mohawk, Pacific

Southwest, Piedmont

Besides mergers, there have also been a number of

sales of assets or routes involving the transfer of

employees, such as United’s acquisition of Pan Am’s

Pacific Routes. In many instances, the merger, or

other corporate transactions, has saved a financially

ailing carrier from failure along with the jobs of thou-

sands of its employees.

This pattern of airline mergers and acquisitions,

which began during regulated times, has continued

throughout the deregulated era, as the industry, re-

acting to market forces, has undergone a massive

consolidation.* Future mergers and corporate trans-

actions which raise representation disputes will cer-

tainly be forthcoming. Several financially weak

carriers have indicated that they will almost certainly

need to be acquired or merged. Many carriers are

either acquiring, buying an interest in, or entering

into marketing and operating agreements with re-

gional feeder airlines.‘ Other carriers are entering into

* Between 1985 and 1988, the Department of Transportation

approved the following acquisitions or mergers: USAir-Pennsy]-

vania Commuter (85-5-115); Midway-Air Florida (85-6-33); South-

west-Muse (85-6-79); People Express-Frontier (85-11-58); United-

Pan American Pacific Routes (85-11-67); Piedmont-Empire (86-

1-45); Horizon-Cascade (86-1-67); People Express-Britt (86-2-34);

Northwest-Republic (86-7-81); Presidential-Key Airlines (86-8-32):

United-People Express/Frontier (86-8-33); Alaska-Jet America

(86-9-18); TWA-Ozark (86-9-29); Texas Air-Eastern (86-10-2);

Texas Air-People Express (86-10-53); Delta-Western (86-12-30);

Alaska Air-Horizon (86-12-61); USAir-Pacific Southwest Airlines

(87-3-11); American-Air California (87-3-80); USAir-Piedmont (87-

10-58). References are to DOT docket numbers.

‘Examples of these commuter airline relationships would in-

clude: American-American Eagle; Northwest-Northwest Airlink:

Pan Am-Pan Am Express.

financial and marketing arrangements with foreign

airlines, such as KLM’s purchase of an interest in

Northwest, Swissair and Delta buying stock in each

other, and British Air’s proposed investment in

United.®

Generally, past airline mergers have proven to be

a financial success for the surviving carrier, and ben-

eficial to the combined work force. Since deregulation

started in 1978, airline employment has soared nearly

50% from 329,000 to 480,000.° As the bulk of the air

carriers are heavily unionized, union membership has

also grown substantially.

B. Representation Issues in Airline Mergers and Corporate

Transactions

Although airline mergers and similar corporate

transactions are primarily business transactions, they

inevitably create questions of employee representa-

tion. In some instances, the same union may repre-

sent the employees in the same craft or class on both

carriers. This is particularly common with pilots,

where the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) fre-

quently represents the pilots on both carriers. How-

ever, with many other employee groups, the

employees of carrier A and carrier B either have

different unions or one employee group may have

preferred to remain unrepresented.

5 Even the unions are now interested in acquiring airlines. The

Air Line Pilots Association has joined with United’s management

in the proposed buyovt of the carrier.

6 Air Transport 1989, The Annual Report of the U.S. Sched-

uled Airline Industry (ATA Report) at 12. Copies of the ATA

Report have been lodged with the office of the Supreme Court

Clerk for the Court’s convenient reference.

Where the merger involves different unions - or

the larger carrier is non-union - the NMB has often

ruled that the certification of the minority union on

the smaller carrier is extinguished upon the opera-

tional merger of the two carriers. See e.g. USAir/

Pacific Southwest Airlines, Inc., 15 NMB 135 (1988);

Republic Airlines/Hughes Air West, 8 NMB 49 (1980).

Not surprisingly in such situations, the minority

union - such as AFA at Delta/Western - will pursue

every avenue in an effort to extend its status as the

representative of its former members.

However, with the exception of the D.C. Circuit

opinion, the courts have unanimously held that there

is only one avenue available for pursuing represen-

tation matters - and that avenue is the NMB. In

situations where the NMB’s “majority of the craft”’

rules result in a favorable outcome for a union, the

union is quite willing to go down this avenue. Con-

versely, where the NMB’s rules would produce a re-

sult unfavorable to the union, the unions have

sometimes sought relief from the courts or arbitra-

tors, usually under the guise of enforcing the suc-

cessorship or scope clause provisions of the minority

union’s contract. However, the courts have repeatedly

recognized that disputes involving representation and

other issues may not be split apart for separate res-

olution by separate adjudicators. See e.g. Western Air

Lines v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, su-

pra; Air Line Employees Association v. Republic Air-

lines, supra; International Brotherhood of Teamsters

v. Texas International Airlines, Inc., 717 F.2d 157

(5th Cir. 1983).

Vested with exclusive jurisdiction over represen-

tation claims arising from mergers, acquisitions, and

a

10

other corporate transactions, the NMB has responded

by exercising its authority over a variety of situations

including:

- mergers of unionized carriers; e.g. North-

west/Republic Airlines, 13 NMB 399 (1986);

- mergers of unionized and non-union car-

riers, the pending merger of Federal Ex-

press/Flying Tigers, 16 NMB 483 (1989);

- creation of non-union sister airline by hold-

ing company of unionized carrier, F’rontier/

Frontier Horizon, 11 NMB 138 (1984);

- purchase of non-union carrier by holding

company of unionized carrier, Transamer-

ica/TransInternational, 12 NMB 204 (1985);

and

- common ownership of multiple commuter

carriers, serving as feeder lines to two dif-

ferent major airlines, Metro Airlines, 16

NMB 3538 (1989).

The statutory requirement of having the NMB han-

dle all merger and corporate transaction related rep-

resentation issues has worked well for all parties. For

the traveling public, there have been no labor dis-

ruptions to service, as over 30 mergers have pro-

ceeded without producing a single strike. For

management, they have been able to rely upon the

Board’s past precedents, so they can know what their

rights and obligations are with respect to represen-

tation. For the unions, they have usually been able

to ascertain quickly what their post-merger status will

1]

be, and avoid unending, intramural bouts between ma-

jority and minority unions.’

C. The D.C. Circuit’s Opinion Upsets Well-settled Law and

Creates Uncertainty and Unpredictability with Respect

to Airline Representation Disputes

The airline mergers and acquisitions described above

succeeded - on the whole - because the surviving car-

rier, in accordance with the policies of the RLA, was

able to meld two separate groups of workers into one

cohesive unit. Once the surviving carrier has launched

the operational merger, it must quickly integrate the

work forces and operate as a single carrier with the

combined workforce which is vital to the economic

success of the new venture. As the NMB itself rec-

ognized in Republic Airlines/Hughes Air West, supra,

the surviving airline must act expeditiously to create

a consolidated carrier:

To do this it needs to be able to integrate

its work force. The current agreement re-

strictions which apply to mechanics and ju-

risdictional restraints on work on aircraft

demonstrate the inherent inefficiency of a

two carrier system for representation pur-

poses.

The Fifth Circuit, endorsing the Republic/Hughes

Air West decision, agreed with the NMB’s view that

permitting certifications to survive a merger “would

reduce the ability of airlines to integrate operations

‘For the minority union, the NMB has evolved special pro-

cedures which make it easier for an ousted union to obtain an

election to gain representation rights. NMB Airline Merger Pro-

cedures, 14 NMB at 391-92.

12

and to maintain a single system.” Teamsters v. TXI,

supra, 717 F.2d at 163. The court pointed out that:

One clerk would have a union representative;

two of his neighbors would be unrepresented.

One employee’s working conditions and

grievance procedures would be governed by

a collective bargaining agreement; two of his

neighbors would not. We defer to the Board's

rationale, bused on the board’s expertise and

the statutory delegation of authority to it, to

determine disputes concerning who are the

representatives of the carrier’s employees.

Id.

If, as AFA wants, the minority union were to sur-

vive the merger, such consolidation could well be im-

possible. Transition agreements are difficult enough

to achieve with just one union per craft or class. They

may become impossible to achieve where two unions

are vying to gain a competitive advantage over one

another. Multiple, split representation status perpet-

uates disunity and cripples the carrier’s efforts to

form a cohesive workforce. One can only imagine the

labor chaos which would confront Northwest today if

it still had to apply Bonanza’s contracts; or USAir if

it had to deal with Mohawk’s unions. Carrying AF‘A’s

proposal to its logical end, an airline could face a

situation wherein part of the craft represented by one

union could go out on strike, while the other part of

the craft, with a different representative, remained

on the job.

In its opinion, the D.C. Circuit suggests that such

fears are unfounded. The court indicates that it is

not interfering with the NMB or intruding into the

13

representation aspects of a merger, but merely giving

the minority union the opportunity to obtain monetary

damages for the alleged breach of the successorship

clause. Contradicting the holdings of every other ju-

dicial body, the D.C. Circuit attempts to separate the

inseparable. While acknowledging that the successor-

ship clause was unenforceable in a representation con-

text, the court nonetheless found that it is fully viable

as a breach of contract claim:

Although those [congressional] policies do

Support a rule that a successorship clause

cannot be specifically enforced, they simply

do not require that an award of damages for

breach of such a clause be barred.

879 F.2d at 916-17.

In a side comment, the opinion goes on to state

that:

The most that can be said in support of Del-

ta’s position is that if a carrier were liable

in damages for breach of the successorship

clause in its CBA, it might forego entering

into an otherwise desirable merger.

879 F.2d at 917.

What the D.C. Circuit ignores is that these ‘oth-

erwise desirable merger(s)’’ in many cases are the

only practical means to protect jobs as well as to

provide continuity of service to the public. A merger

may not only be “‘desirable’”’ to the acquiring carrier,

but absolutely vital to the purchased airline.

Moreover, the threat of prolonged arbitration pro-

ceedings resulting in unpredictable, open-ended dam-

ages, can negatively affect a transaction just as surely

14

as can an injunction, which the D.C. Circuit concedes

it has no authority to issue. While technically denying

the union an injunction, the D.C. Circuit has given

the union a tool which is nearly as powerful. A carrier

would find it difficult to proceed with a merger - or

other substantial acquisition - knowing that the result

could be an unpredictable damages award.

As if to emphasize this point, AFA suggests, and

the D.C. Circuit assumes, that in order to avoid li-

ability, Delta - and other acquiring carriers - should

structure the acquisition so that both carriers continue

as separate operating entities, albeit under the um-

brella of one holding company. That, of course, is

part of the injunctive relief which AFA (and the

Teamsters and Air Transport Employees unions in

the Ninth Circuit) originally sought. And, for the rea-

sons expressed by the NMB and every other court

that has ruled on the issue, it is not a viable option

in either economic or legal terms.

From an economic viewpoint, without a full merger

of the two carriers, most acquisitions cannot produce

the operational synergies and efficiencies necessary

to maintain a viable enterprise. This is particularly

likely to be true where a “‘failing”’ carrier is involved.

From a legal standpoint, even if a purchaser might

keep the two carriers separate in an effort to avoid

unpredictable damage awards, the legal ramifications

could be devastating. The purchasing carrier would

be exposed to potentially conflicting arbitration

awards, as well as NMB proceedings instituted by

rival unions. The majority union on the purchasing

carrier, airline A, might obtain an award finding that

its scope clause extends to the acquired carrier, airline

B. Or the majority union might instigate a ‘‘single

es _ pe

15

carrier’ representation proceeding before the NMB,

which could result in a ruling that the certifications

on carrier A extend to - and extinguish the minority

union certifications on - carrier B. At the same time,

the minority union on carrier B may obtain an ar-

bitration award in its favor based on its successorship

clause. In short, the purchasing carrier would be faced

with arbitration awards that not only conflict with

one another, but also with the determination of the

NMB.

It is precisely to avoid such conflicting and irra-

tional results that Congress gave the NMB exclusive

jurisdiction over all disputes involving representation

rights.

CONCLUSION

Representation disputes arise frequently in connec-

tion with airline mergers and similar transactions. By

vesting the National Mediation Board with exclusive

jurisdiction over all aspects of representation claims,

Congress ensured that the transaction could proceed

in a rational and predictable fashion, while the rep-

resentation rights of the employees and the union are

equitably resolved in a uniform and democratic man-

ner. The decision of the D.C. Circuit would disrupt

this successful system and threaten unnecessary dis-

ruption to air carriers, employees, and unions.

Accordingly we respectfully urge that this Court

grant the petition for a writ of certiorari, and reverse

the D.C. Circuit Court’s opinion.

16

Respectfully submitted,

ROBERT J. DELUCIA

Counsel Of Record

AIRLINE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

CONFERENCE

1920 N Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

(202) 861-7552

DAVID A. BERG

AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION

OF AMERICA

1709 New York Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

(202) 626-4234

APPENDIX

la

APPENDIX

AIR Conference Members

ABX Air

Alaska Airlines, Inc.

Aloha Airlines, Inc.

America West Airlines

American Airlines, Inc.

Braniff, Inc.

Continental Airlines, Inc.

Delta Air Lines, Inc.

Eastern Air Lines, Inc.

Federal Express Corporation

Midway Airlines, Inc.

Northwest Airlines, Inc.

Pan American World Airways, Inc.

Reeve Aleutian Airways, Inc.

Southwest Airlines

Tower Air

Trans World Airlines, Inc.

The Trump Shuttle

United Airlines, Inc.

United Parcel Service

USAir, Inc.

2a

ATA Members

Alaska Airlines, Inc.

Aloha Airlines, Inc.

American Airlines, Inc.

American TransAir

Braniff, Inc.

Continental Airlines, Inc.

Delta Air Lines, Inc.

DHL Airlines

Eastern Air Lines, Inc.

Evergreen International Airlines

Federal Express Corporation

Hawaiian Airlines

Midway Airlines, Inc.

Northwest Airlines, Inc.

Pan American World Airways, Inc.

Southwest Airlines

Trans World Airlines, Inc.

The Trump Shuttle

United Airlines, Inc.

United Parcel Service

USAir, Inc.

Associate Members

Air Canada

Canadian Airlines International