The ex-employees’ attorneys further argued that SpaceX is not engaged in interstate or foreign commerce as defined by the Railway Labor Act. “SpaceX’s transport activities are not between one state or territory and another, nor between a state or territory and a foreign nation, nor between points in the same state but through another state. Rather, they originate in Florida, Texas, or California, and go to outer space,” the filing said.

Spaceflight company and… mail carrier?

The filing also disputed SpaceX’s argument that it is a “carrier by air transporting mail for or under contract with the United States Government.” Evidence presented by SpaceX shows only that it carried SpaceX employee letters to the crew of the International Space Station and “crew supplies provided for by the US government in its contracts with SpaceX to haul cargo to the ISS,” the filing said. “They do not show that the government has contracted with SpaceX as a ‘mail carrier.’”

SpaceX’s argument “is rife with speculation regarding its plans for the future,” the ex-employees’ attorneys told the NMB. “One can only surmise that the reason for its constant reference to its future intent to develop its role as a ‘common carrier’ is the lack of current standing in that capacity.” The filing said Congress would have to add space travel to the Railway Labor Act’s jurisdiction in order for SpaceX to be considered a common carrier.

When asked about plans for appeal, Shaver noted that they have a pending case in US District Court for the Central District of California: Holland-Thielen et al v. SpaceX and Elon Musk. “The status of that case is that we defeated SpaceX’s motion to compel arbitration at the district court level, and that is now on appeal to the 9th circuit,” she said.

SpaceX’s lawsuit against the NLRB is still ongoing at the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, but the case was put on hold while the sides waited for the NMB and NLRB to decide which agency has jurisdiction over SpaceX.