Whether union 'representatives' under 45 U.S.C. § 152 Third means all union officers (as the court below held), only those union officers serving as collective bargaining agents (as the Sixth Circuit has held), or only the union itself (as the Second Circuit has held)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Railway Labor Act (“RLA”) prohibits carriers from interfering with their employees’ “choice of representatives.” 45 U.S.C. § 152 Third. Union Pacific began disciplinary proceedings against six employees involved in a fistfight in a restaurant parking lot. The court of appeals held that 45 U.S.C. § 152 Third applied, and enjoined the disciplinary proceedings, because some of the employees were local union officers, even though none was a collective bargaining representative. The court also held that federal jurisdiction existed based on an unwritten “antiunion animus” exception to the RLA’s provision vesting arbitrators with jurisdiction over minor disciplinary disputes, see id. § 153 First (i), even though this Court has held that the arbitrators’ jurisdiction over such disputes is “mandatory, exclusive, and comprehensive,” Bhd. of Locomotive Eng’rs v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 373 U.S. 33, 38 (1963). The questions presented are: 1. Whether union “representatives” under 45 U.S.C. § 152 Third means all union officers (as the court below held), only those union officers serving as collective bargaining agents (as the Sixth Circuit has held), or only the union itself (as the Second Circuit has held). 2. Whether the RLA contains an unwritten “antiunion animus” exception to the mandatory and exclusive arbitration procedures in 45 U.S.C. § 153 First (i).