◆ SpookStack

42 OCTOBER TERM, 1997, Opinion of the Court, 355 G3. ground for dismissal of the suit, since she Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require 2 claimant to set out in detail the facta oy it upon which he bases his eliim, Pp, 4718, 229 F.2d 436, reversed, Joseph C. Waddy argued the cause for petitioners, With him on the brief were Roberson L, King, Robert L. Carter, William C. Gardner and William B, Bryant, E dward J, Hickey, Jr, argued the cause for respondents, With hira on the brief was Clarence M. Mulholland Mr, Justice Brack delivered the opinion of the Court, Once again Negro employees are here under the Rall. way Labor Act’ asking that their collective bargain. Ing agent be compelled to represent them fairly, Tn a series of cases beginning with Steele v, Louisylle ¢ Nashville B, Co,, 823 VU, S, 199, this Court has emphati- wcally and repeatedly ruled that an exclusive bargaining’ “agent under the Railway Labor Act is obligated to repree courts have power to protect employees, against, such invidious discrimination 2 " This class suit was brought in a Federal District Court in Texas by certain Negro members of the Brotherhood @) of. Railway and Steamship Clerks, petitioners here, on behalf of themselves and other Negro employees similarly * situated against the Brotherhood, its Local Union No. 8 and certain officers of both. In Summary, the complaint 44 Stat, 57, a5 amended, 45 U,$,(. § 151 et seq, *Tunstall y, Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen Enginemen, 323 U.S. 210; Graham vy. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen Enginemen, 338 U. S, $39: Brotherhood of Reilroad Trainmen y, Howard, 343 U, §. 768, Ci. Wallace Corp. v, Labor Board, 323 v U.S. 248: Syres y. Oi Workers International Union, 330 U, 3 §92, sent al employees in the bargaining unit fairly and withe out discrimination because of race and has held that the an re ee ee ee ee Ty s EY SRO E RRS IEE LS HONEA OTE DL, PEPE OEE mt ; . een a Fat CONLEY v. GIBSON. 43 on (pinion of the Court, made the following allegations relevant to our decision: Petitioners were employees of the Texas and New Orleans Railroad at its Houston Freight House, Local 28 of the Brotherhood was the designated bargaining agent under the Railway Labor Act for the bargaining unit to which petitioners belonged. A contract existed between the Union and the Railroad which gave the employees in the bargaining unit certain protection from discharge and loss of seniority. In May 1954, the Railroad purported to abolish 45 jobs held by petitioners or other Negroes all of whom’ were either discharged or demoted. In truth the 45 (jobs were not abolished at all but instead filled by whites’ as the Negroes were ousted, except for a fer instances where Negroes were rehired to fill their old jobs , but with loss of seniority, Despite repeated pleas by petitioners, the Union, acting according to plan, did nothing to protect them against these discriminatory dis- charges and refused to give them protection comparable to that given white employees, The complaint then’ went on to allege that the Union had failed in general to: represent Negro employees equally and in good. faith, — - Tt charged that such discrimination constituted a viola- tion of petitioners’ right under the Railway Labor Act to.” fair representation from their bargaining agent, And it concluded by asking for relief in the nature of declara- tory judgment, injunction and damages, The respondents appeared and moved to dismiss the complaint on several grounds: (1) the National Railroad Adjustment Board had exclusive jurisdiction over the controversy; (2) the Texas and New Orleans Railroad, which had not been joined, was an indispensable party defendant; and (3) the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be given. The District Court granted the motion to dismiss holding that Congress had given' the Adjustment Board exclusive jurisdiction over