“significantly protectable.” Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517, 531, 91 S.Ct. 534, 542-43, 27 L.Ed.2d 580 (1971). The interest claimed by the movants is their desire not to be moved down the seniority list in the event of a judgment for the plaintiffs. Movants claim a plaintiffs’ verdict and subsequent shuffling of the seniority list would deprive them of certain seniority entitlements defined by the Gill Award. Movants state that “such entitlements clearly create enforceable contract rights,” and intervention should be permitted to protect those rights. The Ninth Circuit has found that the desire to protect other employees’ seniority rights is not within those interests which provide a right to intervention. See Dilks v. Aloha Airlines, Inc., 642 F.2d 1155,1157 (9th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). As the movants note, this holding assumes the
holding that where the arbitrator found that an employee committed an offense listed as a ground for discharge he lacked discretion to order the employees reinstatement holding evidence legally sufficient holding evidence legally insufficient holding that an atwill employee may have a cause of action for wrongful discharge when the reason for a discharge was the employees exercise of a right conferred by a wellestablished legislative enactment holding that while junior pilots will be affected by a former pilots suit for reinstatement the juniors have no legally protectable right to benefit from an invalid discharge