◆ SpookStack

oo Fo 44 OCTOBER TERM, 1937. Opinion of the Court. 355 (25, the corittoversy, The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, apparently relying on the same ground, affirmed, 229 F. 2d 436. Since the case raised an-important ques- tion concerning the protection of employee rights under the Railway Labor Act we granted certiorari, 352 U.S. 818, We hold that it was error for the courts below to dis. miss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, They took the position that § 3 First (i) of the Railway Labor Act conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the Adjustment Board because the case, in their view, involved the interpretation and application of the collective bargaining agreement, » _ But §3 First (i) by its own terms applies only to “disputes . between an employee or group of employees and a carrier or carriers.”* This case involves no dispute between employee and employer but to the contrary is a suit by employees against the, bargaining agent to enforce their «, «Statutory right not to.be unfairly discriminated against... ° '? by. it ‘in bargaining The Adjustment Board has no . "Tn full, §3 Fist (i) reads: _ The disputes between an employee or group of employes and a ., _ Carrier or cartiers growing out of Grievances or out ofthe interpreta. "tion or application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, or working conditions, including caseg pending and unadjusted on the date of approval of this Act (June 21, 1934}, shall be handled in the usual manner up to and including the chief operating officer ofthe carrier designated to handle such disputes; but, fuiling to reach an adjustment in this manner, the disputes may be referred by petition of the parties or by either party to the appropriate division of the Adjustment Board with a full statement of the facts and all support ing data bearing upon the disputes” 48 Stat 191, 45 U. 8. C. § 153 First (i). *For this reason the decision in Slocum y, Delaware, L. & WW. R, Co, 339 U.S, 239, is not applicable tere, ‘The cours below also relied on Hayes v, Union Pacific R. Co, 184 F. 24.397, cet, denied, 340 U. 8, 942, but for the reasons set forth in the text we believe that case was decided incorrectly, CONLEY v, GIBSON. 45 4] Opiuion of the Court. power under $3 First (i) or any other provision of the Act o protect them from such discrimination. Further more, the contract between the Brotherhood and the Rall road! will be, at most, only incidentally involved i resolving this controversy between petitioners and their bargaining agent, Although the District Court did not pass on the other reasons advanced for dismissal of the complaint we think it timely and proper for us to consider thera here, They have been briefed and argued by both parties and the respondents urge that the decision below be upheld, if eeessary, on these other grounds. Aa in the courts below, respondents contend that the Texas and New Orleans Railroad Company is an indis- pensable party which the petitioners have failed to join as adefendant. On the basis of the allegations made in the complaint and the relief demanded by petitioners we believe that contention is unjustifiable, We cannot see zo". * how the Railroad’s rights or interests will be affected by . this} action to enforce the duty of the bargaining repre- sentative to represent petitioners fairly, This is not a - suit} directly or indirectly, against the Railroad. .No relief ig asked from it and there is no prospect that any” willl or can be granted which will bind it. If an issue does develop which necessitates joining the Railroad either it or the respondents will then have an adequate opportunity to request joinder. Turning to respondents’ final ground, we hold that under the general principles laid down in the Steele, Graham, and Howard cases the complaint adequately et forth a claim upon which relief could be granted. In appraising the sufficiency of the complaint we follow, 0 course, the accepted rule that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless if appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no'set of facts: . 438765 O=58—=9