opinion: FRANK, Circuit Judge.
  1. We think that a stay, pursuant to Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 3, is not “substantive” within the meaning of Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188, and Guaranty Trust Company of New York v. York, 326 U.S. 99, 65 S.Ct. 1464, 89 L.Ed. 2079. We so held, per Judge Learned Hand, in Murray Oil Products Company v. Mitsui & Company, 2 Cir., 146 F.2d 381, 383, where we said: “Ai'bitration is merely a form of trial, to be adopted in the action itself, in place of a trial at common law: it is like a reference to a master, or an ‘advisory trial’ under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 39(c), 28 U.S.C.A.”
  2. Section 3 applies whether or not the agreement is of a kind covered by Sec. 2, i. e., for purposes of Sec. 3, the agreement need not involve a maritime transaction or interstate or foreign commerce. The power to enact Sec. 3 derives from Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. See, e. g., Shanferoke Coal & Supply Corp. v. Westchester Service Corp., 2 Cir., 70 F.2d 297, 298, affirmed 293 U.S. 449, 55 S.Ct. 313, 79 L.Ed. 583; Agostini Bros. Bldg. Corp. v. United States, 4 Cir., 142 F.2d 854.
  3. Plaintiff argues that Section 3 deals with a suit “brought in any of the courts of the United States” and therefore not with a removed suit. We cannot agree. Murray Oil Products Co. v. Mitsui & Co., supra, was a removed suit; see also Parry v. Bache, 5 Cir., 125 F.2d 493, 495.
  4. Section 1 of the Act provides that “nothing herein contained shall apply to contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” We need not in this case decide whether this clause is restricted in its application to those sections of the Act relating to interstate and foreign commerce or whether it applies to all sections, including Section 3. For assuming, arguendo, that the second interpretation is correct, we think the clause irrelevant here. The words “any other class of workers”, read in connection with the immediately preceding words, show an intention to exclude contracts of employment of a “class” of “workers” like “seamen” or “railroad employees.” Plaintiff was not hired as a “worker” but as a plant superintendent, at a salary of $15,000 a year, with managerial duties fundamentally different from those of “workers.”
  The California arbitration statute excludes from its scope “contracts pertaining to labor.” Code Civ.Proc. § 1280. The California courts have held that this exclusion does not cover a contract with a sales manager, hired at a salary of $100 per week; Kerr v. Nelson, 7 Cal.2d 85, 59 P.2d 821; or one with a motion-picture actor to be paid $1,000 per week; Universal Pictures Corp. v. Superior Court, 9 Cal.App.2d 490, 50 P.2d 500. See also Levy v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.2d 692, 104 P.2d 770, 773, 129 A.L.R. 956. We think these decisions most persuasive.
  Reversed.
  . For a variety of conclusions as to the meaning and application of this clause, see, e.g., Donahue v. Susquehanna Collieries Co., 3 Cir., 138 F.2d 3, 149 A.L.R. 271; Watkins v. Hudson Coal Co., 3 Cir., 151 F.2d 311; Amalgamated Association v. Greyhound Lines, 3 Cir., 192 F.2d 310; Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines v. Amalgamated Association, 3 Cir., 193 F.2d 327; Tenney Engineering Co. v. United Electrical R. & M. Workers, 3 Cir., 207 F.2d 450; Shirley-Herman Co., Inc., v. International Hod-Carriers, 2 Cir., 182 F.2d 806, 809, 17 A.L.R.2d 609; Agostini Bros. Building Corp. v. United States, 4 Cir., 142 F.2d 854; International Union v. Colonial Hardware Flooring Co., 4 Cir., 168 F.2d 33; Gatliff Coal Co. v. Cox, 6 Cir., 142 F.2d 876; Lewittes & Sons v. United Furniture Workers, D.C. S.D.N.Y., 95 F.Supp. 851; Ludlow Mfg. & Sales Co. v. Textile Workers Union, D.C.Del., 108 F.Supp. 45.
  . See discussion of the background of this clause in Tenney Engineering Co. v. United Electrical R. & M. Workers, 3 Cir., 207 F.2d 450, 452-453.
  . Note, inter alia, the provision contemplating that plaintiff might perform services “as a member of the management committee” and might be “elected an officer or director.”
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to issues that may appear in any civil law cases including civil government, civil private, and diversity cases. The issue is: "Did the court's ruling on an issue arising out of an alternative dispute resolution process (ADR, settlement conference, role of mediator or arbitrator, etc.) favor the appellant?" Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".