to certain flying performed by U.S. Airways.” Id. Altho e accrual date on the grounds that MidAtlantic had not officially commenced its operations and employees had not yet been identified by the time of the December 2002 agreement. However, plaintiffs knew that defendants entered into the agreement on their behalf and that any amendment would affect their rights under the CBA as U.S. Airways flight attendants. If, as plaintiffs allege, they were technically recalled under the CBA by working for a division of the mainline carrier, the December 2002 agreement provided them with actual notice that defendants had violated the terms of the CBA by agreeing to inferior wages and benefits that were not contingent on MidAtlantic’s corporate form. See Steele, 323 U.S. at 201-02, 65 S.Ct. 226 (<HOLDING>). Any claim that plaintiffs had for defendants’
holding terms of collective bargaining agreement only a factor in weighing reasonableness of accommodation holding that union members suit based on contract that was independent of a collective bargaining agreement was not preempted and not removable holding that an employee may sue for breach of a collective bargaining agreement without the union holding that the union owes its representatives a duty to enforce the terms of the negotiated collective bargaining agreement holding that union members had standing to bring rico claims for reduced compensation under collective bargaining agreement