*1 pro- III. CONCLUSION procedural due 1984) (determining that commission’s applies to administrative cess Thus, Zenco has failed to demonstrate supervi- of the state the decision review interpretation of Missouri law control).4 The district court liquor sor of court is error or Judge the district Cahill that Randall to ex- continued determined expressed by contrary to the views therefore in Missouri and press the law appellate courts. Missouri property not have a Zenco did held that Accordingly, we affirm. license renewal.5 interest concern determination A district court’s the court in which

ing law of the state deference. to considerable sits is entitled Carrouth, v.

Parkerson (8th Cir.1986). We will overturn of state law court’s district OF “ ‘fundamentally defi INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION only if find them we & WORK MACHINISTS AEROSPACE ba analysis, a reasonable cient in (IAM), ERS, IAM District AFL-CIO reported sis, contrary to a state-court Lodge Appellees, ” v. McCarthy Bros. Const. Co. opinion.’ v. Pierce, (8th Cir.1987) 832 F.2d Casualty Co. v. (quoting Ecomony Fire & AIRLINES, NORTHWEST Co., Ins. Tri-State INC., Appellant. Cir.1987)). the district cannot fault No. 87-5235. concluding that Randall controlled court in Appeals, Court of United States Indeed, cases subse two the result here. Eighth Circuit. 311.691 indi the enactment quent § property interest protectable no cate that Sept. 1987. Submitted municipal liquor of a in the renewal exists April 1988. Decided Ems, Vaughn v. license. See S.W.2d Payton rel. (Mo.Ct.App.1988); State ex Riverside, 640 S.W.2d 137 City (Mo. Ct.App.1982).6 hearing must review commission provides ministrative as follows: Section 311.691 the Administrative consistent with the decision Any person aggrieved official action of provides hear- Hearing for notice and Act which affecting liquor supervisor of control ARO, ARO is ing. S.W.2d at 506-08. See juris- subject person to the of a licensed status 311.691, as the Ad- control, inapplicable as well since liquor supervisor diction Act, apply only Hearing to state grant, ministrative grant, including revocation, the refusal to licenses, supra, liquor n. 4. see suspension, or the failure license, may a determination seek renew a hearing com- administrative Vaughn, thereon cities refused re Payton and 6. In provisions of section pursuant mission broadly The for worded statutes. newals under 161.272,RSMo, be a condition and it shall not attacked the ordinances license holders mer aggriev- person such determination Vaughn, without success. unconstitutional reconsideration, rehearing, or a a ed seek Judge Missouri Court Simeone of the Senior procedure within the office exhaust other Appeals wrote: liquor supervisor of control. business, liquor with a We deal here (Vernon Supp.1988). Ann. Stat. 311.691 Mo. liquor liquor license. The of a the renewal statute, reading appears From plane than oth- stands on different business procedures only apply though the review operations. It is and business er commercial control, supervisor liquor decision of the law and is differ- placed the ban of the may pro- while this statute state official. per- occupations. No other entiated from all concerning li- state review for decisions vide quor engage right to or natural son has an inherent licenses, provide review for it does not engage in the business Those who therein. municipal liquor regarding licenses. decisions except legal rights liquor have no the sale of granted by li- statute and those provides that a licensee 5. Section 311.691 cense. supervisor’s decision review of the seek omitted). (citations Vaughn, 744 S.W.2d at 547 hearing The ad- commission. administrative *2 LAY, Judge,

Before Chief FLOYD GIBSON, Judge, R. Senior Circuit MAGILL, Judge. Circuit MAGILL, Judge. Circuit (NWA) appeals Northwest Airlines from grant permanent injunction by of a requiring district court NWA to continue to abide and dues check-off in two collective administered the Interna- (IAM).1 tional Association Machinists appeal On NWA contends that the district jurisdiction court did not have to issue the injunction. disagree with the district case, court as to its and we jurisdiction hold that the court was without (RLA), under the Labor Act seq. (1982), 151 et grant U.S.C. §§ injunction.

I. BACKGROUND. August merged NWA Republic merger Air. employ- Before the ees of represented both airlines had been separately by three unions: Brotherhood of Railway, Steamship Airline and Clerks (BRAC), Employees Air Line Association (ALEA), represented or IAM. NWA employees in the mechanics-related craft or bargaining agree- class under a collective ment referred to as the Tan Book. That is not at issue in this suit. represented employees BRAC NWA office, clerical, passenger fleet and service (clerical class), craft or class under another (the bargaining agreement Book). Air, Republic At both classes of represented by ALEA under the Or- ange Book. merger,

On the date of the NWA notified BRAC, IAM, and ALEA that certi- ALEA’s extinguished by merger. fication was NWA also informed the unions that Republic former Air in the cleri- D.C., Gallagher, Washington, John J. for represented by cal class would now be appellant. BRAC, Republic and the former Air me- Guerrieri, Jr., Joseph D.C., Washington, repre- chanics-related workers would be appellees. for sented IAM. IAM continued to security provision requires paychecks 1. A union to deduct union dues from the employee good standing a member in employees tions, who authorize such deduc- employment. union as a condition of continued and remit the deductions to the union. provision requires A dues check-off the carrier Tan workers under the limit the effectiveness of those sections to represent NWA However, apparently ALEA. IAM administered the NWA Book and interpreted Republic Air workers. former Book for implied BRAC and as an authorization for cessation

anticipation of Agree- the union out Transition deduction of dues. Section NWA had worked Paragraph of the Transition states to deduct dues ment. Agreement provided remit them “Union.” “Union” *3 any Orange originally Book defined binding on successor labor in the was shall be Agreement preamble Employ- as the “Air Line organization. The Transition in the Association, Book also generally provided that the Green ees International.” NWA applicable employ- on the authorization forms described now to those relied would be Book, para- Orange formerly Specifically, in ALEA. which as- ees 8(b) subject ALEA graph signed the Transition the dues that were Book Article 29 the Green to checkoff. stated that employees formerly rep- govern the

would 12, 1987, May the National Mediation ALEA, as all BRAC- by well as resented a runoff Board ordered election between 8(a) represented employees. Paragraph BRAC, ALEA, and IAM to determine who any conflicting provisions specifically made representative the sole for all would be inoperative. Orange Book No tran- employees. classes of IAM was certified IAM agreement was worked out with sition representative of the clerical class as as Air me- concerning Republic the former IAM result of that election. be- employees, undis- but was chanics-related representative came the of both classes puted Orange set forth the and has all three col- workers administered bargaining agreement applicable collective bargaining agreements lective from that employees repre- ALEA former those undisputed It IAM and time on. IAM. sented NWA both bound Throughout process, specified with this here, relevant NWA contin- exceptions not NWA refused to honor the dues check- the col- operating ued under the terms of Orange security off and agreements negotiated lective Books, reasoning they and Green were However, it predecessor unions. binding ALEA not because BRAC and to honor the dues check-off refused replaced by a union. IAM successor security provisions on the union based NWA, seeking brought against suit an or- and the Book.2 Article Green Book NWA dues requiring der to honor the Book is “Union of the Green entitled provisions of check-off and union 29H. the dues Security.” Article contains Orange and Green Books. The district provision. check-off Article 291. states: permanent injunction court entered long in shall be so “This article force which, judgment, preserved the sta- in its recognized continues as the the Union quo by requiring tus NWA abide representative under provisions. injunction required The NWA Agreement.” Article 29 also defines remit employees’ dues and to deduct to mean term “as used herein” Union employee had to IAM if an individual them BRAC. court such action. The district authorized Book, disagreement major dis- governed to be a found which pute held that resolved Air “it must be Republic before

ALEA and notice, negotiation, and according no terms. There was was in different cast in Rail- procedures outlined in the sections on dues mediation express provision 151 et Act, way Sections security which would Labor U.S.C. and union check-off representa- BRAC-repre- group ALEA when IAM assumed fact deduct dues for did in 2. NWA up did a demand for in class of them. IAM not make the clerical tion sented May when that IAM certified as the union dues until time was until the However, bargain- on Au- elected and certified as the sole representative of that class. it was ing representative. gust NWA ceased check-off for dues held consti- Appendix at 299. The district The court that NWA’s actions seq.” Joint mediation, pending ordered that tuted a then and the security provisions contract mandating agreement, resolution dues NWA to check-off must obligations of disagree. 6 of the RLA. We quo. the status continue proper construc- NWA submits that the court characterized de- The district Book, Article 29 of read tion of the Green issue as whether terminative conjunction Agree- The court stated: major or minor.3 was ment, is that the and securi- dues check-off there rejects and holds that The Court dead,” ceased, ty provisions “dropped reading paragraph 13 which any May when succeeded BRAC nullity render would [Article 29] other union event of the selection following argument NWA makes employees. BRAC than position: support of its virtue of Appendix The court then at 294. *4 paragraph Agreement, 13 of the Transition concluded: Agree- IAM was bound Paragraph of the transition union; ment as the certified successor labor modify the served BRAC-North- ment 8(b) paragraph virtue of the Tran- prohibition, any, if agreement’s west Agreement, sition Article 29 of the Green application on of the un- there was the Book continued full force and effect provi- and dues check-off ion’s provi- from the date of and its the any agreement that labor sions of triggered by sions could be the election of other than BRAC. Para- organization BRAC; IAM as the successor union to labor contemplated specifically that graph 13 I by virtue of Article as as other Article 29 well Book, Article a 29 ceased to be agreement would the BRAC-Northwest Book, “dropped dead” of the Green or organiza- binding on a successor labor replaced when BRAC because BRAC IAM. such the tion longer recognized representa- the was no Appendix at 297-98. of the NWA tive clerical workers. the The district court also found relevant Book did not even provisions of interpret It is not our or function to appli- on their face to limit “purport [their] language construe the of the contract. Appendix at 298. cation.” Joint Rather, our function is to determine wheth implicates question this case of con er a ANALYSIS. II. interpretation. tract We conclude that view, presents this case a clear our characterizing a does. The salient feature example dispute, and thus of a minor minor its resolu dispute section 3 is that properly vested with district court was not upon the con interpretation tion turns jurisdiction. supra Moreover, tract. See n. 3. where disagree parties the dis over whether dispute disagreement A minor is a over pute can be reference to an resolved application of an ex- and dispute agreement, is minor unless the agreement. isting collective “friv dispute justification claims of contractual are The district court characterized “obviously major, on its olous” insubstantial.” in this case as based conclu- Maine v. United Central Railroad Co. provisions at sion that the contract issue Union, Transportation F.2d susceptible to one construction. properly major disagreement dispute categorized a over the is does 3. A minor is interpretation agreement, application jurisdiction preserve and of an lie in the federal courts and be resolved the National quo parties pursue the status while media- Adjustment pursuant Railroad Board to section RLA, section 6 codified at 45 tion under RLA, 3 of the codified at 45 U.S.C. 153. Elgin, See Rail- U.S.C. 156. Joliet & Eastern hand, disagree- major dispute a a the other is Burley, way Co. v. 65 S.Ct. change in ment over formation of or a (1945). 89 L.Ed. 1886 Only bargaining agreement. if the — stantial, U.S. —, that the district denied, we conclude Cir.), cert. (1st (1986); jurisdiction Chicago erroneously over a mi- asserted 169, 93 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. Transportation Co. v. nor dispute.4 Northwestern Union, Transportation United provision nothing “drop dead” is Cir.1981) cases). (listing 278-79 similar to than a durational clause more as follows: the test has framed This circuit construed one dispute is has said that This Court Flight Independent Federation Inc. “reasonably if minor Attendants, (8th Cir.1987), F.2d 483 interpretations susceptible” equally divided per curiam aff'd employer and the sought by both — court, —, U.S. said that courts have employees. Other (1988). To hold that dura- L.Ed.2d 150 employer’s ac- minor if the dispute is in a collective bar tional clause embodied arguably justified tion can be inoperable gaining agreement as a mat existing agreement, or terms and the contract continues sub ter of law employ- unless the dispute is minor 6 of the under section ject within its actions are argument er’s on the impermissible is an restriction RLA “obviously insubstantial.” contract is Although we parties’ ability to contract. essentially the same These locutions are agree agree that the collective rela- They illustrate the result. their in a manner con ment should be construed tively light burden which [airline] policy, RLA it does not follow sistent with showing that its actions must bear disregard entirely the a court should thus within changes minor at most *5 agreement.5 negotiated terms of the quo. the status check- court has noted that “a dues This Way Em Maintenance Brotherhood of purely a creature of con- provision off is Northern Railroad Burlington ployees Airlines, 809 F.2d at tract.” Cir.1986) (cita Co., 1016, 1022 (8th F.2d security. The same is true of union Transpor omitted); see also United tions proper it for not believe that is we do Northern, Burlington Union v. tation disrupt the collective a federal court Cir.1972). Inc., 458 F.2d (8th This issuing quo a status bargaining process adjunct of the need to necessary rule is a extending artificially a contrac- injunction jurisdic exclusive protect the arbitrator’s throughout “almost intermi- right tual sup disputes; this concern over minor tion section 6 of the RLA. process under nable” in corollary that “when additional ports the injunction quo status In this context a mi doubt, disputes as construe the courts di- neutral act. It would not be a would Engi Locomotive nor.” Brotherhood of and could have rectly benefit the Union Atchison, Fe Topeka and Santa neers v. extending security and the union effect of Co., Cir. beyond far dues check-off 1985). parties. contemplated by the time that NWA’s Because we believe RLA is laudatory goals of the of the One plausible, construction contract bargaining good between promote faith obviously insub- any event not frivolous or existing agreement analysis made in behalf govern cel our 4. Similar considerations representa- employees by previous that it and lead us to conclude their reasonably susceptible one in- Report to more than is terpretation. of the NMB at First Annual tives.” The when 312-13). We believe that Section (II (1935) Appendix at 23-24 preamble, conjunction could read in support agree position, do not believe and we agree- interpretation that NWA’s “drop giving clause vio- dead” effect of dues check-off ment authorized the cessation principles the NMB. announced lates the in the administra- when IAM succeeded ALEA Giving "drop will dead" clause effect to the tion of the Book. repre- negotiated by prior the CBAas honor For us to with the clause left intact. sentative accept respect their to successor unions and 5. With excising support argument IAM’s rights bargaining agreements under collective clause, however, "drop violate would dead" union, negotiated by prior the National Media- principles the NMB. these announced (NMB) position that "a Board has taken the tion change representation or can- does alter management, guage, giving but the court exceeded its role. The the Un- court should have looked at the lan- leverage quo injunction of a status ion the guage to determine if check-off enforcing the dues and union se- management “relatively light” had met its good inmay disrupt fact curity provisions showing burden of its action was bargaining. faith based on its First Circuit stated We think ment. That is the role that we exercise Association Ma best in International actions this case. We believe that NWA’s Aerospace Workers v. East chinists and reading plausible on a were based (1st Inc., F.2d Cir. ern relevant 1987), that: it stated when passing Finally, we note in that there is a preliminary injunc- granting against strong public policy judicial involve- give] IAM case tion in this [will disputes by way injunctive ment labor law, neither the the col- advantage that Lines, Air relief. See v. Eastern agreement, nor labor lective (1st Cir.1987). * * * contemplates. If practice relations foregoing, Based on the we conclude security and dues its union loses [IAM jurisdiction the district court lacked to is- to this rights], the answer injunction Accordingly, in this case. sue an through judicial interven- problem not reversed, court is the order of the district of a collective in the reformation tion injunction and the is dissolved. rather agreement, renegotiation provi- of these through the LAY, dissenting. Judge, Chief appropriate time arises. sions when the respectfully join I dissent. I cannot the ne- private matter between This is a majority opinion for several reasons: parties in which the courts gotiating any support intervening. Its is without have no business in law or fact. omitted). (citations at 1148 Id. ignores It without discussion the Further, the extent that the district governing representation law successor Manning v. American Air court relied on under the RLA. *6 (2d Cir.), Inc., lines, 329 F.2d 32 cert. de (3) wrongly It concludes that IAM is nied, 13 L.Ed.2d by bound be- (1964), disagree. Manning The we IAM tween BRAC and NWA to which language durational construed the court signatory party; was not a such a conclu- in an governing dues check-off found principles violates of law. sion basic separate from agreement that was (4) false issue of contract It creates a bargaining agreement. The main collective interpretation where none exists. agree check-off language provided that the legally It treats subject to renewal there be ment “shall the ALEA contract to be the same as the agreement of the only by mutual after contain BRAC contract when the two Manning, 329 F.2d at 34. parties hereto.” completely which are differ- our view the stated The court “[i]n * * * ent. only language meant that automatic totally miscomprehends pro- It agreement would not of the basic renewal relating cedural mechanism to unilateral agreement along with carry the check-off changes working conditions under the of disagree Manning with the it.” Id. RLA. First, reasons. we dis decision for two agree the court’s May Republic- after the clause. agreement’s check-off durational run-off Northwest IAM won a result, language and, We think it is clear that the as a was certified as election agreement pre representative check-off was intended the sole for the classes of Second, employees represented in this suit. It is its automatic renewal. vent attempted undisputed that IAM and NWA have never Manning extent that any kind of transition agreement lan- entered into interpret the check-off by The effect of a certification However, parties agree that both ment. employees have Board is that the chosen by and does continue to IAM is bound represent dealing agents other them (Green Book) BRAC old administer management under the Book) bargaining (Orange ALEA * * * agreement. must Conferences by NWA are agreements. IAM and bound agree [any then held to on desired] by of reason agreements these original repre- changes exactly as if the agreement pre-existing transition pur- continued. The sentatives had been operation of law.1 emphasize pose policy of such a is to and certifica- of the election By reason principle Railway Labor Act that of IAM succeeds question no tion there is employees agreements are between the union ad- representative becomes the carrier, change and that the of and the bargaining ministering the old collective employee representative does not au- an speaks of The Book change tomatically the contents of Book union and the Green ALEA as the agreement. section 6 of union. representative denotes BRAC as Labor Act are to be IAM certification was Upon election and agreements any changes in followed if representa- as the sole simply substituted are desired. place under those tive Forty-Second Report Annual of the Nation- BRAC. This substitution ALEA and both (1976) (II Mediation Board at 39 al agreements; operative is not because 315) added). (emphasis Appendix at representative is succession as As stated the Fifth Circuit Court expressly mandatory reason made designate “If Appeals: suc- certification. IAM’s election and representative, new collective operation ALEA and BRAC ceeds repre- to the status of the former succeeds obligations under the law and no terms in the contract sentative without alteration changed. contracts are Brotherhood terms.” International Teamsters, Chauffeurs, & Warehousemen recog- Board has The National Mediation Division) (Airline v. Texas Helpers Am. in these terms: proposition nized Inc., Int’l in effect there is an When asserts, however, Cir.1983). and its a carrier between limits dues representatives and signed by one set of represented the period when BRAC representa- employees choose new urges employees. IAM Board, who are certified tives Agreement must be 13 of the Transition that a position Board has taken substituting IAM for BRAC read as alter representation does not Book and therefore throughout the Green *7 existing agreement made any cancel or obligations do not cease. The the carrier’s previ- by their in of the behalf analysis, part adopted in this district court representatives. ous susceptible reading stating is no that there National Report of the The First Annual NWA to agreements that allows of the two (II 23-24 responds at Mediation Board NWA cease the dues check-off. added). 312-13) (emphasis reasonably suscepti- Appendix at if contract is that the dispute expanded upon interpretations, that state- then the later to two The Board ble go must to arbi- a minor one and becomes ment: suggest basic con Agreement To otherwise violates entered into be case. 1. The Transition July pro party principles. to that tween BRAC and NWA on IAM was not a tract agreement binding any vides that it would be labor union. pret on successor bind BRAC and NWA could not and Magill Judge finds a need to inter NWA IAM’sconsent. IAM to terms without along this Transition agreement separate to obtain a transition tried support his "minor Green Book in order to succeed. with IAM but it did not dispute" premise. This is an irrational straw assumption majority’s of contract inter basic Agree man. The old BRAC-NWA Transition pretation fallacious. is totally to this ment is immaterial and irrelevant 1126 agreements affecting working is in urging If correct that conditions

tration. NWA dispute depends upon the of the unilaterally implemented resolution by either then interpretation of party procedures under until mediation Elgin, is clearly dispute a minor one. section 6 of the RLA have been exhausted. 711, Burley, v. Ry. E. Co. 325 U.S. Joliet & regard Manning this v. American (1945). 1282, L.Ed. 1886 How- 65 S.Ct. (2d Airlines, Inc., Cir.), F.2d 32 cert. ever, a mis- approach, creates 33, denied, 379 13 L.Ed. U.S. S.Ct. necessity leading The to read the issue. (1964)succinctly 2d 29 states another con equivalent interpreting to contracts not trolling principle. Manning involved them, not in itself transform a and does by dues clause that its terms a minor major into one. expired April 1963, unless renewed on Orange Book does contain a The not agreement between the union mutual limiting dues check-off for clause and the carrier. The rest of is no limitation in the Or- ALEA. There bargaining agreement automati renewed in the Book. ange Book as contained Green given cally written notice was unless 4, although majority The in footnote admit- provided under section of RLA. “drop ting the Green Book’s dead” clause (the May 1, Orange the carrier discontinued dues is not contained contract), nonetheless finds that if old ALEA check-off. The Circuit held that Second govern analy- considerations” “similar permitted to discontinue carrier This is absurd. sis of both dues check-off the terms the con clause in the Or- There exists no cessation tract, to parties then a collective bar to ange simply Book. IAM succeeds gaining agreement completely could avoid of ALEA and is substi- representative state That the effects of section of the RLA. throughout tuted for ALEA difficulty concluding court had no majority’s reasoning al- The would ment. working dues condi check-off constituted agreement to entire low NWA void Judge rea Friendly tion within section 6. it chooses because whatever purpose prevent “The of 6 was to soned: designated originally or de- not the union rocking side boat either until preamble of the Book. fined Labor Act were clearly analy- and This is not the law such exhausted; ‘working interpreting condi purpose spirit of ignores sis the entire agreed tions’ to include an check-off accom party even the RLA.2 IAM was not to plishes purpose better than a narrower Agreement between BRAC Judge Friendly at 35. construction.” Id. Nonetheless, previously and NWA. working also stated that when conditions stated, obligated NWA and IAM are involved, pro 6 is effect of “[t]he continue the terms long agreements subject its Books, they regardless say as to termi what operation of law. Under such circumstanc- at terms nation.” Id. es no cessation As 2. of aff'd U.S. —, dures, gaining by Detroit and order 325 statutory ^[142] thrust. At the any interruption in commerce. Brotherhood Flight Congress, per Judge Bright succinctly interruptions at to Attendants, curiam sought & 148, prevent, if scheme has ] Toledo Shore railroads and S.Ct. (footnote omitted). 90 S.Ct. “to enacting these detailed same encourage of Inc. possible, equally ^[294] time, F.2d 483 interstate commerce." Line L.Ed.2d 150 their at 298 Independent stated divided wasteful R.R., seeks (8th Cir.1987) employees This detailed as its [24 recently —court, 396 U.S. to L.Ed.2d (1988): strikes proce- major avoid Fed’n bar- Id. at 486. and disastrous whenever adopted, ers. representative following merger mechanisms under result. *8 gaining to resolve their labor of Co., Railroad provide 32 L.Ed.2d 344 Surely Congress majority’s radically and there Trainmen negotiation. 369, 377-78, was parties interruptions the RLA defeat the (1969). did not intend such a change v. Jacksonville Terminal disputes in this case and every opportunity purpose of the certified of cause through of two carri- Act commerce would, attempts self-help of 1114- bar- the if Inc., Express, REA 164, continuation Clerks v. conclude 523 F.2d I must denied, (union (2d Cir.), 1017, cert. dues 168 423 working U.S. 96 of conditions 451, (1975); during 46 L.Ed.2d 388 United security provisions) S.Ct. and union the RLA Indus. Workers Int’l Un of mediation notice and of Seafarers v. ion N. Am. Board Trustees purported is governed by the limitation of of of Wharves, 183, Galveston security to the 351 F.2d check-off and union 190 n. of dues (5th Cir.1965). interpreta- predecessor union contract 26 tion, RLA itself. by reason of the In Detroit & Toledo Shore Line R.R. Co. Act, Union, Transp. v. Railway 142, Labor 45 United

Section 6 396 U.S. 90 156, 294, sets forth the U.S.C. 24 L.Ed.2d 325 S.Ct. Su- § change rates of to effect a of preme quo provi- be followed Court defined status rules, working conditions. “The pay, or govern sions of the RLA that here. The objective Labor Act is con of Court said: quo of the status until statu tinuance quo provisions There are three status Act been ex tory procedures of the have Act, covering in the each a different hausted.” United Indus. Workers of major stage dispute settlement N. Am. v. Board Int’l Union of

Seafarers procedures. the section im- Section of Wharves, 400 Trustees Galveston of case, provides of mediate concern omitted), Cir.1968) (footnote rules, pay, working that “rates of or denied, rt. 395 U.S. S.Ct. ce during conditions shall not be altered” (1969). “The term 23 L.Ed.2d 219 period from the first notice of a ‘working broadly is to be inter conditions’ proposed change agreements up preted.” Independent Flight Fed’n At of through any proceedings and before the Airlines, Inc., tendants v. Trans World National Mediation Board. Section 5 (8th Cir.1981). 155, 157 This 655 F.2d provides days following that for 30 First court, as the courts of other cir as well closing proceed- of Mediation Board cuits, working conditions has found that ings “no shall be made and dues check include both rules, working pay, rates of conditions See, Air e.g., provisions. off practices prior or established in effect lines, Independent Flight v. Fed’n Inc. arose,” dispute unless the the time the Attendants, (8th Cir.1987) parties agree to or a Presi- arbitration check-off) (union security and dues aff'd Emergency Board created dur- dential court, equally per curiam divided provides ing days. Finally, the 30 10§ — U.S. —, 1101, 99 L.Ed.2d Emergency that after the creation of an (1988); Manning American Air days Board Board and for 30 after the lines, Inc., (2d Cir.) (dues 329 F.2d 32 President, report its to the “no has made denied, check-off), cert. except by agreement, shall be change, (1964). S.Ct. 13 L.Ed.2d 29 controversy in parties made Judge Magill ignores body this entire the conditions out which provisions must be read The rule in of these cases com- arose.” These law. all conjunction implicit status ports principle the universal that fed- with requirement obligation im- injunctions quo courts issue eral district First, posed upon parties by “to quo working condi- both preserve the status every effort” to settle though have exert reasonable tions even expired by their own terms. Brotherhood disputes interruption to inter- Steamship Railway, Airline and state commerce.3 otherwise, agreements or in order to avoid As stated in the RLA: any interruption opera- to commerce or to carriers, duty their It shall be all growing any dispute officers, tion of carrier out agents, every to exert between the carrier and the there- make reasonable effort to and maintain rules, concerning of. pay, ments rates of Line, conditions, (quoted working disputes, U.S.C. 152 First in Shore and to settle all *9 18). arising n. application of such U.S. at 151 n. 90 S.Ct. at 300 whether out of the (some 150-51, 90 S.Ct. at 299-300

Id. at omitted).

footnotes the dues check-off and union

Because conditions, working

security provisions pending comple- maintained

they must be contemplated in sec-

tion of Issuance the district of the RLA.

tion 6 proper injunction is to maintain of an I working conditions. conclude NWA’s attempt those condi-

unilateral impermissible under the contracts

tions compliance 6 of the with section

RLA.4 ELMORE, Appellant, F.

Calvin America, Appellee. STATES

UNITED

No. 86-2260. Appeals,

United States Court

Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 1987. April

Decided 1988. moot, eighty percent case is because the ment it was conceded that over asserts that this injunction was to district court stated that the cease on of the relevant had in fact filled out August them, as to all the cards. at least as to the district complete card who did not a new authorization injunction court's still exists. disagree. argu- for dues check-off. I At oral