BIRCH, Circuit Judge

Several dozen police officers (the "Appellants") seek in this case to force the City of Mobile, Alabama (the "City") to pay them overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201-19 (the "FLSA"), for time they have spent on roll-call and other pre- and post-shift duties. Appellants also demand overtime pay from the City on a state law contract claim, based on a 1969 Alabama law that entitles policemen in Mobile County to overtime compensation for work in excess of 40 hours per week. In the district court, Appellants lost their FLSA claims on summary judgment because the court held that the City was entitled to a statutory exemption under 29 U.S.C. § 207(k) (the "7(k) exemption") and that the Department of Labor's (the "DOL"'s) no-docking regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 541.118(a), was invalid as applied. Appellants also lost their contract claim because the district court ruled that the act on which their claim was based had been repealed. On appeal, Appellants argue that the City has not qualified for a 7(k) exemption, that the Supreme Court's recent decision in Auer v. Robbins, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 905, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (1997), establishes the validity of the no-docking rule, and that the Alabama statute underlying their contract claim is still good law. Although we agree with the district court that the City is entitled to a 7(k) exemption, we believe that the pay-docking issue merits further consideration by the district court in light of Auer, and we are concerned that Appellants's contract claim raises important issues of state law that it would be better for the Supreme Court of Alabama to decide. Therefore, we AFFIRM IN PART, REVERSE IN PART, and CERTIFY two state law questions to the Supreme Court of Alabama.

I. BACKGROUND

Appellants are patrol officers, sergeants, and lieutenants in the Uniform Services Divisions of the Mobile Police Department (the "MPD"). As such, the officers are subject to the "Rules and Regulations" adopted by the Mobile County Personnel Board (the "Personnel Board"), which has authority under Alabama law to establish job classification and compensation plans for the MPD. See generally 1939 Ala. Local Acts 470 ("Act 470"). Appellants, however, are actually in the employ of the City, which is free under the Personnel Board's Rules to choose a work period for its employees.

In 1974, the City Commission adopted Resolution 60-1440 "establish[ing] a Fourteen (14) Day work period for all members of the Mobile Police Department . . . ." R3-76 at 10. At least in part, the City adopted this resolution in response to Congress's extension of the FLSA in 1974 to cover state and local governments. Although the Supreme Court subsequently found Congress's 1974 amendments to the FLSA unconstitutional, see National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833, 96 S.Ct. 2465, 49 L.Ed.2d 245 (1976), the City never repealed Resolution 60-1440. As a result, the Resolution has remained in place through the Supreme Court's reversal of Usery in Garcia v. San Antonio Metro. Transit Auth., 469 U.S. 528, 105 S.Ct. 1005, 83 L.Ed.2d 1016 (1985), and Congress's subsequent re-extension of the FLSA.

Following Congress's re-extension of the FLSA, the Personnel Board amended its Rules to address "Payment for Overtime. In Rule 3.1(c), the Personnel Board mandated that:

All employees non-exempt from the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act shall be compensated for overtime for all hours paid in excess of forty (40) hours per week at one and one half (1-1/2) times the employees' hourly rate of pay, or in the alternative, shall be awarded compensatory time in accordance with the provisions of said Act. . . .

R3-76 at 8. In adopting this rule, the Personnel Board may or may not have repealed an earlier "local act" passed by the Alabama state legislature, 1969 Ala. Local Acts 856 ("Act 856"), which mandated in pertinent part that:

In all counties coming within the purview of this Act, all policemen employed by any city in the county and all deputy sheriffs in such counties shall be entitled to one and one-half (1 1/2) times their hourly wage for each hour worked in excess of forty (40) hours a week in any one week.

Although the Personnel Board has in Rule 3.1(c) required overtime pay for "non-exempt" City employees, it has not adopted any Rule specifying those positions which it understands to be exempt from the FLSA. Moreover, the City continues to have authority to set its employees' pay periods and to determine their work schedules. Pursuant to this authority, the City pays its patrol officers, sergeants, and lieutenants every other Friday, reflecting a 14-day payroll period. As part of their regular work schedules, the City's patrol officers must report for roll call ten minutes before each eight-hour shift. With this time taken into account, the patrol officers' regular work schedule is 81 hours and 40 minutes for ten work days in a 14-day payroll period. Similarly, the City's sergeants and lieutenants also must devote time to roll call before their 8-hour shifts. In addition, sergeants and lieutenants must, as part of their regular duties, train, supervise, and discipline their squads of patrol officers. As a result of these responsibilities, the City's sergeants and lieutenants often must perform significant pre- and post-shift activities, causing them to work more than 86 hours within a 14-day payroll period. The City does not pay its patrol officers, sergeants, or lieutenants any overtime compensation for time spent on roll call; the City pays its patrol officers time-and-a-half for work over 81 hours and 40 minutes in a 14-day payroll period (i.e., for work over 80 hours of shifts plus pre-shift time spent on roll call), but it does not pay its sergeants or lieutenants any additional compensation for overtime work.

As an additional component of the City's pay scheme, its patrol officers, sergeants, and lieutenants are all subject to disciplinary pay-docking under the MPD's "General Orders" for a variety of misbehaviors, including infractions of non-safety rules. As the district court found, the City has in fact docked the pay of several sergeants and lieutenants for violations of non-safety rules. Although the City claims on appeal to have reimbursed those sergeants and lieutenants whom it has subjected to non-safety-related, disciplinary pay-docking, Appellants vigorously dispute the City's assertion, and the record on the reimbursement issue is inconclusive.

In 1993, a number of Mobile's police officers sought overtime pay from the City for time spent on roll call. In response to these officers' inquiries, the City's Police Chief issued a memorandum stating that:

[S]ince the Police Department has an established work period of at least 7 days (ours is actually 14 days), the Department is not required to pay overtime compensation unless you work more than 86 hours during those 14 days. Because you are regularly scheduled for only 81 hours and 40 minutes . . ., you are not entitled to overtime pay for roll call.

R3-76 at 12. In conformance with the Chief's memorandum, the City has refused to pay its patrol officers overtime compensation for time spent on roll call. In addition, the City has continued to deny overtime compensation to its sergeants and lieutenants.

Unsatisfied with the City's policy, Appellants filed suit against the City on July 2, 1993, in the district court. Specifically, Appellants alleged that the City had violated their rights to overtime and straight pay under the FLSA; Appellants also claimed that the City had breached their contractual right to overtime pay under Alabama Local Act 856 and Rule 3.1(c).

In August, 1994, the City moved for summary judgment on three grounds. First, the City argued that, under the FLSA's 7(k) exemption, it is not required to pay overtime compensation to any member of its police force who does not work more than 86 hours in a 14-day payroll period. Second, the City contended that it is not required to pay its sergeants or lieutenants any overtime compensation whatsoever, regardless of their hours, because they are "executive" employees. Third, the City maintained that Appellants are not entitled to overtime compensation as a matter of contract law because Rule 3.1(c) expressly incorporated the FLSA's exemptions and thereby repealed Act 856 by implication.

Subsequently, Appellants cross-moved for summary judgment. Among their asserted grounds for summary judgment, Appellants argued that (1) the City does not qualify for a 7(k) exemption because it has not affirmatively and expressly adopted a 7(k) plan, (2) the City's sergeants and lieutenants are not exempt as executive employees because they are subject to non-safety, disciplinary reductions in pay in violation of the DOL's no-docking rule, (3) Act 856 and Rule 3.1(c) both established a contractual right for Appellants to overtime pay, and (4) at a minimum the FLSA requires that the City provide straight pay (as opposed to "time-and-a-half" overtime pay) for work in excess of 40 hours in any 7-day work week.

On October 27, 1994, the district court entered summary judgment for the City against Appellants. In doing so, the district court held that the City was entitled to a 7(k) exemption and that the no-docking rule was invalid as applied to the City. In addition, the district court rejected the Appellants's contract claims on the grounds that Rule 3.1(c) had incorporated the FLSA's exemptions and repealed Act 856.

Upon review of the district court's order on appeal, this court found sua sponte that the district court had failed to resolve Appellants's claim for straight pay. Accordingly, we held that we lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the district court's judgment was not final, and we remanded the case to the district court. See Freeman v. City of Mobile, No. 94-7171 (11th Cir. Aug. 28, 1996). On remand, Appellants did not contest the City's argument that the FLSA does not govern straight pay, and the district court entered judgment against Appellants on that remaining issue. With the City's judgment against them now final, Appellants have timely appealed to this court.

II. DISCUSSION

On appeal, Appellants advance three arguments that merit discussion. First, Appellants contend that the City must pay overtime compensation for all time worked by Appellants in excess of 40 hours per week because the City has not "affirmatively adopted" a 7(k) plan. Second, Appellants maintain that the Supreme Court's recent decision in Auer has established, contrary to the district court's holding, that the Department of Labor's no-docking rule is valid; Appellants therefore urge us to hold that the City's sergeants and lieutenants do not qualify for the executive exemption because they are subject to pay-docking. Third, Appellants argue that Rule 3.1(c) and Act 856 give them a contractual right to overtime for hours that they work in excess of 40 per week. We examine the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Appellants. See Avery v. City of Talladega, 24 F.3d 1337, 1340 (11th Cir. 1994).

A. THE 7(k) EXEMPTION

Section 207(k) of the FLSA provides that:

No public agency [engaged in law enforcement activities] shall be deemed to have violated subsection (a) of this section with respect to the employment of . . . any employee in law enforcement activities . . . if —

. . . .

(2) in the case of such an employee to whom a work period of at least 7 but less than 28 days applies, in his work period the employee receives for tours of duty which in the aggregate exceed a number of hours which bears the same ratio to the number of consecutive days in his work period as 216 hours . . . bears to 28 days, compensation at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed.

29 U.S.C. § 207(k). Thus, if a city government adopts a work period of 7 to 28 days for its police force, it may require its officers to work more than 40 hours per week without having to pay overtime. See Birdwell v. City of Gadsen, 970 F.2d 802, 804 (11th Cir. 1992). Applying this statutory formula, a city need not pay overtime unless an employee works more than 86 hours in a 14-day work period. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 553.230. In determining whether a public agency is entitled to a 7(k) exemption, we narrowly construe the exception against the employer, and we require the employer to show by "clear and affirmative" evidence that it has adopted a work period of between 7 and 28 days. See Birdwell, 970 F.2d at 805.

To support its claim to a 7(k) exemption, the City cites Resolution 60-1440, its 14-day payroll period, and the 1993 memorandum from the Mobile Police Chief reaffirming and explaining Appellants's work period. To rebut this evidence, Appellants argue that the City has not adopted any resolution containing language explicitly adopting a 7(k) compensation plan. Under our precedents, however, the City does not have to make any such "affirmative" showing. Rather, it is sufficient that the City can show, through Resolution 60-1440 and other circumstantial evidence, that it has adopted a 14-day work period. See Birdwell, 970 at 806; Avery, 24 at 1343. Since Appellants have offered no relevant evidence of their own tending to show that the City does not have a 14-day work period, there is no dispute of material fact for a jury to resolve. Thus, we hold that the City is entitled to a 7(k) exemption and so need not pay overtime compensation to any of the appellant patrol officers, sergeants, or lieutenants for up to 86 hours of work in any 14-day work period.

B. THE NO-DOCKING RULE

Unlike the appellant patrol officers, the appellant sergeants and lieutenants sometimes work more than 86 hours in a 14-day work period, without receiving overtime compensation. The City, however, argues that it is exempt from paying its sergeants and lieutenants overtime compensation because they are "executive" employees under 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(1). According to § 213(a)(1), the overtime provisions of the FLSA do not apply to "any employee employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity." For this exception to apply, the sergeants and lieutenants must perform "executive duties" and be paid "on a salary basis." See 29 C.F.R. § 541.1. Again, the City bears the burden of proving the applicability of the exception, and we construe the exemption narrowly against the employer. See Avery, 24 F.3d at 1340.

Although the lieutenants and sergeants do not dispute that they perform "executive duties," they contend that they do not meet the "salary basis" test because the City has not complied with the DOL's no-docking rule regarding unpaid disciplinary suspensions. See 29 C.F.R. § 541.118(a). Under this rule, an employer may only subject its salaried employees to deductions for (1) absence for a day or more for personal reasons other than sickness or accident, see id. § 541.118(a)(2); (2) absence for a day or more for sickness or disability, if the deduction is made in accordance with a bona fide sick leave plan, see id. § 541.118(a)(3); (3) absence resulting from good faith penalization for infractions of safety rules of major significance, see id. § 541.118(a)(5); (4) absence for less than a day for personal reasons, sickness, or injury, if the deduction is made in accordance with an accrued leave plan, see id. § 541.5d(a); or (5) absence due to a budget-related furlough, see id. § 541.5d(b).

In its order, the district court found that the City's past suspensions of sergeants and lieutenants raised material questions of fact as to whether the City had violated the no-docking rule. Nonetheless, the district court granted summary judgment for the City because the court thought that the regulation was invalid as applied to the City; the district court believed that "[i]t could not have been Congress' intent that public accountability should be sacrificed by a public agency such as the City in order for it to comply with the provisions of the FLSA exemptions." R3-76 at 30.

While this case has been pending on appeal, however, the Supreme Court has ruled that the no-docking rule is valid with regard to state and local governments. See Auer, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. at 909-10. Although the City readily concedes that Auer has eviscerated the basis for the district court's holding on the executive exemption issue, it argues that the "window of corrections" established by DOL regulations allows municipalities to avoid violating the salary rule by reimbursing improperly-docked employees. See 29 C.F.R. § 541.118(a)(6) ("[W]here a deduction not permitted by these interpretations is inadvertent, or is made for reasons other than lack of work, the exemption will not be considered to have been lost if the employer reimburses the employee for such deductions and promises to comply in the future."). In support of this argument, the City assures us that it has reimbursed the sergeants and lieutenants whom it has previously docked, and it promises not to violate the no-docking rule in the future. See Auer, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. at 912; Davis v. City of Hollywood, 120 F.3d 1178, 1180-81 (11th Cir. 1997). In response, Appellants vigorously contends that the City is not properly reimbursing several of the affected sergeants and lieutenants.

In light of the Supreme Court's intervening Auer decision and the inconclusiveness of the record with regard to reimbursement of any previously disciplined sergeants and lieutenants, we agree with Appellants that we should remand this case to the district court for further consideration. Because we believe that the Appellants's contract claim presents difficult, important, and dispositive issues of Alabama law, however, we will hold this portion of the case in abeyance while we await the Supreme Court of Alabama's resolution of the questions we certify below.

C. The State Law Claims

Beyond their FLSA claims, Appellants argue that they have contractual rights under Rule 3.1(c) and Act 856 to overtime compensation. Unlike the pay-docking issue, which at most affects only the appellant sergeants and lieutenants, these claims would, if successful, result in overtime pay for all of the Appellants. As this court has previously ruled, a personnel ordinance may establish a contract entitling local government employees to overtime pay. See Kohlheim v. Glynn County, 915 F.2d 1473, 1479 (11th Cir. 1990). Such a contract may give employees rights to overtime compensation beyond those required by the FLSA (i.e., the FLSA does not preempt state law contract provisions that are more generous than the FLSA demands). See, e.g., Avery, 24 F.3d at 1347-48.

Before discussing the different issues presented by Appellants's claim under Act 856, we first dispense with Appellants's contractual claim under Rule 3.1(c). In contrast to Act 856, which mandates that "all policemen" shall receive overtime pay for work in excess of 40 hours per week, Rule 3.1(c) requires only that "[a]ll employees non-exempt from the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act" shall receive overtime pay. On its face, therefore, Rule 3.1(c) incorporates the FLSA's exemptions into its guarantee of overtime compensation. Thus, Appellants can not have a greater contractual right to overtime pay under Rule 3.1(c) than they have under the FLSA. See Avery, 24 F.3d at 1348 (holding that an employee handbook incorporating the FLSA exemptions could not establish a greater contractual right to overtime compensation than the plaintiffs' right to such pay under the FLSA). As a result, the Appellants's claim for overtime compensation under Rule 3.1(c) has no more (or less) merit than their federal law FLSA claims discussed above.

Appellants's claim under Act 856 is much more difficult to resolve. In its arguments to this court, the City has not questioned that, if Act 856 is still valid law in Mobile County, then it has a contractual obligation under the Act to pay all of the Appellants overtime compensation for any time that they have worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The City, however, urges us to affirm the district court's ruling that the Personnel Board repealed Act 856 by implication when it enacted Rule 3.1(c). Having carefully considered the parties' contentions with regard to the repeal issue, we face two difficult questions of Alabama law that go to the heart of the legal relationship between Alabama's state government and its county personnel boards. Because we do not wish to publish an opinion and judgment that, if relied upon by parties and political units in Alabama, could interfere with Alabama's constitutional system, or its policy regarding payment of overtime compensation for Mobile employees, we therefore set out these questions in some detail and certify them to the Supreme Court of Alabama.

First, we are uncertain as to whether the Personnel Board has the power to repeal Act 856. Regarding this question, we have found a number of relevant statutory provisions and Alabama cases, yet we are not confident that any of these is dispositive. Under Act 470, the Personnel Board's rules have "the force and effect of law." Act 470 § IX(b). Applying this provision, the City argues that the Alabama legislature has granted the Personnel Board authority to repeal local acts such as Act 856.

Perhaps running against the City's position, Act 470's § XI requires the Mobile County Personnel Director to submit a "Pay Plan" that is "not inconsistent with such rate or rates as may otherwise in specific instances be fixed by law." This provision, however, by its terms only applies to the Personnel Director, who is an employee of the Personnel Board. Moreover, the Alabama courts long ago explicitly held that § XI does not limit the actions of the Personnel Board:

As we construe Section XI, it specifies certain facts and information the Director shall take into consideration in formulating his Pay Plan and the italicized words may confine his suggested pay plan to the rates of pay already "fixed by law," but even so, they in no wise limit or restrict the Personnel Board . . . .

Stone v. State ex rel. Goetz, 8 So.2d 208, 209 (Ala.Civ.App. 1942); accord Stone v. State ex rel. O'Connor, 8 So. 210, 212 (Ala.Civ.App. 1942).

Additionally, § IX(c) of Act 470 states that the Personnel Board may enact rules "not inconsistent with the laws of the state." Although this provision may preclude the Personnel Board from repealing Act 470, it does not appear to require such a construction when read in the larger context of § IX as a whole. In part (b) of § IX, Act 470 declares that "Rules adopted under this section shall have the force and effect of law." In reading these portions of § IX together, we think that one could conclude that § IX gives the Personnel Board power to promulgate and repeal local law (§ IX(b)), but only if it is consistent with Alabama's general (as opposed to "local") laws (§ IX(c)). Consistent with this possible view of § IX, the Alabama courts not only have construed § IX to give the Personnel Board sweeping regulatory power, see Jordan v. City of Mobile, 71 So.2d 513, 519 (Ala. 1954), but also have gone so far as to state that, under § IX, the Personnel Board's rulemaking power is "co-extensive with that of the legislature," Mobile Fire Fighters Assoc. v. Personnel Board of Mobile County, No. 2960962, (Ala.Civ. Ct. Feb. 13, 1998). Thus, § IX(c) is an ambiguous provision that may or may not foreclose the Personnel Board from repealing a "local act" such as Act 856.

Beyond these particular provisions of Act 470, the Alabama courts have, in several cases, discussed the limits of the Personnel Board's power under the Act, although they appear never to have addressed directly the question of whether the Personnel Board can repeal local acts of the legislature. Repeatedly, Alabama courts have held that the Personnel Board may not enact any rule amending or subverting Act 470 itself, since Act 470 is the statute from which the Board derives its authority. For example, in Personnel Board of Mobile County v. City of Mobile, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that the Personnel Board could not circumvent an amendment to Act 470 that removed the Personnel Board's authority to regulate the City's employment of a police chief. See 84 So.2d at 369. Applying these Alabama precedents, one could well conclude that the Personnel Board does not have the power to repeal or circumvent Act 856 because Act 856 amended Act 470. If, by enacting Act 856, the Alabama legislature took away power from the Personnel Board (rather than simply writing a local-law labor regulation equivalent to one of the Board's rules), then the legislature in effect amended Act 470's grant of power to the Board, and the Board cannot repeal or amend this amendment to its founding statute. Cf. id. at 369.

On the other hand, the Alabama Supreme Court's holding in Freeman v. Purvis, 400 So.2d 389 (Ala. 1981), seems to suggest that, if Act 856 amended Act 470, it did so in a way that does not bind the Personnel Board. In Purvis, the Alabama Supreme Court examined an act quite similar to Act 856; while Act 856 sets policemen's hours for overtime, Act 80-797 in Purvis established minimum salaries for deputy sheriffs. In Purvis, the Personnel Board argued, inter alia, that Act 80-797 violated the Alabama constitution because it improperly repealed Act 470. The Alabama Supreme Court, however, held that Act 80-797 did not repeal Act 470 but rather "amended Act No. 470 by supplementation." Purvis, 400 So.2d at 393. Specifically, the Purvis court ruled that Act 80-797 supplemented the "minimum . . . rate" language of Act 470's § XI. By analogy, then, Purvis would seem to indicate that Act 856 also amended Act 470 by supplementing § XI. As we discussed above, and as the Alabama courts have previously held, however, § XI only concerns the Personnel Director, an employee of the Personnel Board, and "in no wise limit[s] or restrict[s] the Personnel Board." Goetz, 8 So.2d at 209; accord O'Connor, 8 So. 210 2d at 212. Thus, according to some established Alabama authorities, Act 856 would seem to have amended only a provision of Act 470 which the Personnel Board is free to disregard.

In sum, the issue of whether the Personnel Board has the power to repeal Act 856 presents a difficult and heretofore apparently unsettled question of Alabama law. Because the answer to this question is dispositive of the patrol officers' (and perhaps also the sergeants' and lieutenants') claims in this case, and because we are hesitant to issue an opinion that, if relied upon by private persons or government officials in Alabama, might interfere with the fundamental relationship between Alabama's state legislature and its county personnel boards, we certify the following question to the Supreme Court of Alabama pursuant to Alabama Rule of Appellate Procedure 18:

QUESTION ONE: DOES THE MOBILE COUNTY PERSONNEL BOARD HAVE THE POWER TO REPEAL OR OTHERWISE AMEND OR SUPPLANT LOCAL ACTS PASSED BY THE ALABAMA STATE LEGISLATURE SUCH AS 1969 ALA. LOCAL ACTS 856?

If the answer to this question is "yes," then we would ask the Supreme Court of Alabama to address the subsidiary question of whether the Personnel Board in fact did repeal Act 856 by enacting Rule 3.1(c). We would request instruction from the Supreme Court of Alabama concerning this second question because it involves the juxtaposition of two well-established, but in this case perhaps contradictory, Alabama principles of statutory construction.

First, Alabama law clearly disfavors repeal by implication. In order to find implied repeal, Alabama courts require that two laws be "repugnant" or in such "conflict with each other" that repeal must be presumed. See, e.g., Fletcher v. Tuscaloosa Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass'n., 314 So.2d 51, 55 (Ala. 1975). Alabama law does not require, however, that a court accept any construction of a later statute that is technically consistent with a previous law. Instead, a court must look to the "legislative intent" underlying the latter act to determine whether there is a "reasonable construction" of the second statute that does not conflict with the first. See, e.g., Sand Mountain Bank v. Albertville Nat'l Bank, 442 So.2d 13, 19 (Ala. 1983). Applying this rule alone, we think that Rule 3.1(c) is susceptible to two possible constructions: (1) Rule 3.1(c) simply mandates that all employees under the Personnel Board's jurisdiction comply with the overtime provisions of the FLSA; or (2) Rule 3.1(c), in the context of the whole body of the Personnel Board's rules and consistent with the principle of expressio unius, incorporates the FLSA's exemptions so that it not only requires overtime pay for non-FLSA-exempt employees but also bars overtime pay for FLSA-exempt employees. In other words, Rule 3.1(c) may be susceptible to both non-Act-856-repealing and Act-856-repealing interpretations.

If the first, non-repealing construction is "reasonable," then Alabama's law on implied repeal requires that a court adopt it so that both Act 856 and Rule 3.1(c) can be given continued effect. See, e.g., Sand Mountain Bank, 442 So.2d at 19. We are uncertain, however, whether the non-repealing interpretation is "reasonable" given the Alabama courts' long-established principle of deference to contemporary construction. Under Alabama law, "contemporaneous construction" of a law is entitled to "great consideration." State v. Tuscaloosa Bldg. Loan Ass'n, 161 So. 530, 534 (Ala. 1935). In choosing between competing constructions of a statute, Alabama courts consider "the contemporaneous construction placed upon [the statute] by the courts, by the officers whose duty it was to construe [it], and by the executive departments and the popular interpretation, as exemplified in practice for a number of years. . . ." State ex rel. Fowler v. Stone, 185 So. 404, 408 (Ala. 1938); cf., e.g., Fletcher, 314 So.2d at 55 (finding implied repeal based on legislative intent); Sand Mountain, 442 So.2d at 18 (explaining that in construing a statute to determine whether there has been an implied repeal, "a court must look not only to the language of the statute, but also to the purpose and object of the enactment and its relation to other laws."). "When the law has contemporaneously been put into operation, and in doing so a construction has necessarily been put upon it, this construction, especially if followed for some considerable period, is entitled to great respect, as being very probably a true expression of the legislative purposes, and is not lightly to be overruled." Trammel v. Conner, 8 So. 495, 496 (Ala. 1890). Applying this principle, we see a variety of evidence in the record indicating that the Personnel Board has consistently construed and applied Rule 3.1(c) as incorporating the FLSA's exemptions to bar overtime payment for FLSA — exempt employees — thereby implicitly repealing Act 856.

Nonetheless, we are not confident as to whether such contemporary construction evidence may render an interpretation of a statute or rule so unreasonable as to overcome the Alabama courts' disfavor of implied repeal. Out of deference to the Supreme Court of Alabama, we do not wish to publish a federal court opinion that might, if relied upon by parties in Alabama, disrupt unnecessarily the long development of Alabama's principles of statutory construction. Therefore, we certify the following second question to the Supreme Court of Alabama:

QUESTION TWO: IF THE MOBILE COUNTY PERSONNEL BOARD HAS THE POWER TO REPEAL ACT 856, DID THE BOARD IN FACT REPEAL ACT 856 BY IMPLICATION WHEN IT ENACTED RULE 3.1(c)?

The particular phrasing of the two certified questions is not intended to limit the Supreme Court of Alabama in its consideration of the various issues posed by the entire case as it perceives them to be. The entire record and the briefs of the parties shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court of Alabama to assist its determination.

III. CONCLUSION

By demonstrating that it has adopted a 14-day work period, the City has established that it is entitled to a 7(k) exemption. As a result, we AFFIRM the district court's ruling that the City need not pay overtime under the FLSA to the appellant patrol officers, sergeants, or lieutenants for up to 86 hours of work within one of its 14-day work periods. Because of the Supreme Court's intervening decision in Auer, however, we must REVERSE the district court's holding that the no-docking rule is invalid as applied to the City and its sergeants and lieutenants (who may work more than 86 hours per week). Because we believe that state law issues are dispositive of the case, especially with regard to the patrol officers, we hold the no-docking portion of the case in abeyance while we await the Supreme Court of Alabama's resolution of the two CERTIFIED questions.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and CERTIFIED to the Supreme Court of Alabama.