for today submitted briefs and so we will move on to saxon against southwest airlines company and we should have ms bennett where the court is defining who's part of the transportation when we're talking about railroad workers or seamen but in this context there isn't a lot of control in person at the airline counter takes the bags from the customer and throws them onto the conveyor belt at which point they presumably move out of the airplane is that person participating in loading and unloading or not transportation and specifically the bank people who are loading and unloading cargo so i don't think it actually needs a unique meaning in this context and i think giving it a unique meeting in this context would actually conflict with what circuit city says the way the saxon at least because of her supervisor role i assume is not under a collective bargaining agreement and one of the things that other courts have been looking at is to say well we have this substitute system of dispute resolution for railroad workers under collective bargaining agreements whatever but your your system would leave this sort of hole in the arrangements what's your response you know to answer to that your honor  on here that section one does not apply to long shore men if you look at the children's act and longshoreman or the one who were loading and unloading the ships for the seamen how w your baggage and some good sense of sterling's dolittle sex we have her affidavit though that says even though that may have been the formal job description she spent three days out of five each week physically loading and unloading need to worry about whether it was you know sixty percent of her time as she says or twenty percent of her time or some minimal percentage i mean surely at this stage we have to take her factual estimate  she is not actually actually engaged in transportation that is interstate commerce so it is your position is that cross the board then if i just want to understand it across the board no one who loads or unloads whether it's into an airplane whether it's into a rail car whether it's onto a ship no one who on loads or unloads is quote engaged in commerce no one who  interpreted was in the more broader provision of the sectional exemption not there is it will cause it was about once a contract of employment whether someone's an employee with a certain city has said in which a new prime did not match because as new prime notes the parties had stipulated that the truck driver at issue was engaged in interstate commerce within the section while it did not touch that was what new prime then looked at was the term  that goes beyond the meaning of the words that congress actually also in that opinion circuit city rejected the attempt to equate the term involving or relating to commerce with  then there's a much more direct notion of crossing state lines being part of the transportation of goods or services or people if you are simply affecting commerce or involving commerce then it's something the meaning of which changed dramatically during the one thousand nine hundred and thirty s and has remained quite broad but the supreme court in circuit city looks at the engaged in commerce language and says that's the that's the more narrow one that's you you really got to be one of the participants in the the actual interstate commerce and i don't know i don't know what principle tells us where to draw that line whether it's you know you have to climb into the pilot's seat and slide the airplane or could you be a flight attendant are you are you the person who helps stop the wheels when it comes up to the terminal or are you a load or unload or you know we need some way of drawing this which is why we wouldn't say anybody who works for i mean this i wouldn't say anybody who works for a rail company is engaged in commerce is probably somebody sitting there is a is a receptionist in an office and they're not in commerce but we're talking about whether the particular job of loading and unloading the cargo is is actually so much so so close so necessary you but did they give a reason i and i'm concerned about the analogy to the longshoreman because the special statute wasn't passed until years later well i think it did the distinction that was made the judge know the really labor act has applied to airlines for years and congress wanted to include airline workers or some subset within those broader terms along with railroad workers or it could have done so but you know i'd argue my just too broad because congress clearly did that if a union of airline workers has a problem under a collective bargaining agreement it goes to our l arbitration you know mine are just quote unquote minor dispute so the congress has made that quite clear so i'm worried that maybe there's you're proving too much by this argument  actually if you look at it excuse me i had if you look at this saxon she's no different than any other employee and any other industry in southwest is no different than any other employer  other industry where in our union representatives zoe and southwest can enter into an individual arbitration agreement in the only way that miss saxon of ways that agreement is by either that the f a a is the product like most of compromise and so we're trying to figure out actually how the f a a would treat somebody who's loading and unloading cargo whether a union member whether commerce certainly miss saxon concedes that she does not do that actually she can see that she doesn't even trans or goods the nd way would be under the th circuit or rd circuit or even just circuit authority that says let's look at whether they're actively engaged in interstate commerce are they manipulating the channels of commerce as just downloaded that could be the employee who actually directs the route that the pilots fly and actually direct they they are and th circuit has held that they voted on the baggage those are the folks that take the stroller at the gate and put it onto the airplane why should they not also be relating to interstate commerce i engaged in interstate commerce that term has any meaning it has consistently been interpreted by the appellate court since circuit city to exclude those who merely handle cargo and that's all we're saying is which is what is the principle here southwest has proposed you know nobody you know if a wine he's crossing state lines that actually conflicts with century you have a supreme court precedent that says congress does not require a process in state line wouldn't prevent the lying growing problem if you physick half of all the standard as you physically cross the lines of pizza delivery driver in d c or chicago would be engaged in interstate commerce if the lines instead of being a part of interstate transportation practically a part of interstate and three piece enough that the supreme court has said that's a very narrow mine it would exclude for example the food service people at the airport but it would include voting unloading interstate cargo and stop there thank you very much thanks to both counsel for the