The ex-employees\u2019 attorneys further argued that SpaceX is not engaged in interstate or foreign commerce as defined by the Railway Labor Act. \u201cSpaceX\u2019s transport activities are not between one state or territory and another, nor between a state or territory and a foreign nation, nor between points in the same state but through another state. Rather, they originate in Florida, Texas, or California, and go to outer space,\u201d the filing said.<\/p>\n
Spaceflight company and\u2026 mail carrier?<\/p>\n
The filing also disputed SpaceX\u2019s argument that it is a \u201ccarrier by air transporting mail for or under contract with the United States Government.\u201d Evidence presented by SpaceX shows only that it carried SpaceX employee letters to the crew of the International Space Station and \u201ccrew supplies provided for by the US government in its contracts with SpaceX to haul cargo to the ISS,\u201d the filing said. \u201cThey do not show that the government has contracted with SpaceX as a \u2018mail carrier.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n
SpaceX\u2019s argument \u201cis rife with speculation regarding its plans for the future,\u201d the ex-employees\u2019 attorneys told the NMB. \u201cOne can only surmise that the reason for its constant reference to its future intent to develop its role as a \u2018common carrier\u2019 is the lack of current standing in that capacity.\u201d The filing said Congress would have to add space travel to the Railway Labor Act\u2019s jurisdiction in order for SpaceX to be considered a common carrier.<\/p>\n
When asked about plans for appeal, Shaver noted that they have a pending case<\/a> in US District Court for the Central District of California: Holland-Thielen et al v. SpaceX and Elon Musk. \u201cThe status of that case is that we defeated SpaceX\u2019s motion to compel arbitration at the district court level, and that is now on appeal to the 9th circuit,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n