induced (i.e., the plaintiffs' rights to force ALPA to keep its promises). If the source of the rights ‘is state common law, then preemption obviously applies, as this Court discussed in Dunn and as the Eastern District of Virginia discussed in Nellis. If the source of the plaintiffs' rights is the CBA, the Merger and Fragmentation Policy, and ALPA's Constitution and ByLaws, then preemption still applies, as is discussed in the body of this Order as well as by other courts in such cases as Underwood v. Venango River Corp., 995 F.2d 677 (7th Cir.1993). 9 . Like claims arising from the CBA, claims and allegations predicated upon the Merger and Fragmentation Policy also are subsumed by the federal duty of fair representation. See Nellis v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, 815 F.Supp. at 1534 (<HOLDING>). 10 . A handful of Mann plaintiffs are not
holding that state law fraud claims are preempted by the federal labor law duty of fair representation holding that in the fact circumstances of that case a valid duty of fair representation claim must be based on a showing that alpa breached the terms of its merger and fragmentation policy holding rla duty of fair representation claim preempts identical state law claims of fraud and deceit holding intentional conduct without rational basis is arbitrary breach of duty of fair representation holding that sixmonth duty of fair representation statute of limitations applicable to claim alleging breach of union contract