statutory claim should be preempted, nor have we found any basis for preemption based on our review of the 1964 collective bargaining agreement. The agreement states that the purpose of the section on employee protection is “to afford protective benefits for employees who are displaced or deprived of employment as a result of changes in the operations of the carrier....” The agreement nowhere states that the protections stated in the CBA are exclusive of any protections that might be provided under state law or that employees have agreed to give up any protections to which they are entitled under state law. Indeed, statutes often provide protections for employees beyond those provided in CBAs. See, e.g., Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 86, 94 S.Ct. 1011, 39 L.Ed.2d 147 (1974) (<HOLDING>). The fact that a CBA provides some particular
holding that the disappearance by merger of a corporate employer which has entered into a collective bargaining agreement with a union does not automatically terminate all rights of the employees covered by the agreement and that in appropriate circumstances present here the successor employer may be required to arbitrate with the union under the agreement holding that an employee may sue for breach of a collective bargaining agreement without the union holding that an employee does not forfeit his title vii right of action if he first seeks relief under an arbitration clause in his collective bargaining agreement holding that petitioners remedy under title vii of the civil rights act was in addition to remedies available under the collective bargaining agreement in force between his employer and his union holding that antidiscrimination rights under title vii cannot be waived by a collective bargaining agreement