infra at 60-63. 5 . The RLA provides for criminal enforcement of § 152, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, and Eighth — not § 152, First. See 45 U.S.C. § 152, Tenth. 6 . We note, with respect to plaintiffs' breach claim against APFA, that plaintiffs have alleged no independent duty owed them individually under the contract. See United Steelworkers of Am. v. Rawson, 495 U.S. 362, 374, 110 S.Ct. 1904, 109 L.Ed.2d 362 (1990) ("If an employee claims that a union owes him a more far-reaching duty [than the duty of fair representation], he must be able to point to language in the collective-bargaining agreement specifically indicating an intent to create obligations enforceable against the union by the individual employees.”); see also May v. Shuttle, Inc., 129 F.3d 165, 179 (D.C.Cir. 1997) (<HOLDING>); Nellis v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, 15 F.3d 50,
holding that rla preempts state law claim for wrongful discharge even where rla arbitral mechanism not implicated because state claims seek to vindicate rights largely secured by federal law holding state law fraud and deceit claims to be preempted holding that in the context of federal immigration law the amount of loss to the victim of fraud or deceit does not refer to an element of the fraud or deceit but rather refers to the particular circumstances in which an offender committed fraud or deceit holding that state law fraud claims are preempted by the federal labor law duty of fair representation holding rla duty of fair representation claim preempts identical state law claims of fraud and deceit