Document: 355 U.S. 41 78 S.Ct. 99 2 L.Ed.2d 80 J. D. CONLEY et al., Petitioners,v. Pat GIBSON, General Chairman of Locals 6051 and 28, etc., al. No. 7. Argued Oct. 21, 1957. Decided Nov. 18, Mr. Joseph C. Waddy, Washington, D.C., for petitioners. Edward Hickey, Jr., respondent. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion Court. 1 Once again Negro employees are here under Railway Labor Act1 asking that their collective bargaining agent be compelled to represent them fairly. In a series cases beginning with Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 323 192, 65 226, 89 L.Ed. 173, this Court has emphatically repeatedly ruled an exclusive Act is obligated all in unit fairly without discrimination because race held courts have power protect against such invidious discrimination.2 This class suit was brought Federal District Texas by certain members Brotherhood Steamship Clerks, petitioners here, on behalf themselves other similarly situated Brotherhood, its Local Union 28 officers both. summary, complaint made following allegations relevant our decision: Petitioners were New Orleans Railroad at Houston Freight House. designated agents which belonged. A contract existed between gave protection from discharge loss seniority. May 1954, purported abolish 45 jobs or Negroes whom either discharged demoted. truth not abolished but instead filled whites as ousted, except few instances where rehired fill old Despite repeated pleas petitioners, Union, acting according plan, did nothing these discriminatory discharges refused give comparable given white employees. The then went allege had failed general equally good faith. It charged constituted violation petitioners' right fair representation agent. And it concluded relief nature declaratory judgment, injunction damages. 3 respondents appeared moved dismiss several grounds: (1) National Adjustment Board jurisdiction over controversy; (2) Railroad, been joined, indispensable party defendant; (3) state claim upon could given. granted motion holding Congress controversy. Appeals Fifth Circuit, apparently relying same ground, affirmed. 229 F.2d 436. Since case raised important question concerning employee rights we certiorari. 352 818, 77 37, 44. 4 We hold error below lack jurisdiction. They took position § First (i) conferred case, view, involved interpretation application agreement. But own terms applies only 'disputes group carrier carriers.'3 involves no dispute employer contrary enforce statutory unfairly discriminated bargaining.4 any provision discrimination. Furthermore, will be, most, incidentally resolving controversy 5 Although pass reasons advanced dismissal think timely proper us consider here. briefed argued both parties urge decision upheld, if necessary, grounds. 6 As below, contend Company join defendant. On basis demanded believe contention unjustifiable. cannot see how Railroad's interests affected action duty representative suit, directly indirectly, Railroad. No asked there prospect can bind it. If issue does develop necessitates joining adequate opportunity request joinder. 7 Turning respondents' final principles laid down Steele, Graham, Howard adequately set forth granted. appraising sufficiency follow, course, accepted rule should dismissed failure unless appears beyond doubt plaintiff prove facts support his would entitle him relief.5 Here, alleged, part, wrongfully those help grievances they Negroes. proven manifest breach Union's hostile unit. squarely subsequent prohibited Act. representative's draw 'irrelevant invidious'6 distinctions among represents come abrupt end, seem contend, making agreement union employer. Collective continuing process. Among things, day-to-day adjustments working rules, resolution new problems covered existing agreements, already secured contract. more discriminate carrying out functions than negotiating agreement.7 may impartial face yet administered way, active tacit consent union, flagrantly some 8 point fact aggrieved file sue Granting this, still furnishes sanction alleged refusing Act, attempt aid employees, great chosen majority them. individuals small groups begin possess presenting him. Nor minority choose another bargain behalf. need obliged handle clear once undertook present represented refuse take similar faith just 9 also argue specific therefore proper. decisive answer Rules Civil Procedure do require claimant detail he bases claim. To contrary, 'a short plain statement claim'8 defendant notice what plaintiff's grounds rests. illustrative forms appended plainly demonstrate this. Such simplified 'notice pleading' possible liberal discovery pretrial procedures established disclose precisely defense define narrowly disputed issues.9 Following simple guide Rule 8(f) 'all pleadings shall so construed substantial justice,' basis. reject approach pleading game skill one misstep counsel outcome accept principle purpose facilitate merits. Cf. Maty Grasselli Chemical 303 197, 58 507, 82 745. 10 judgment reversed cause remanded further proceedings inconsistent opinion. 11 ordered. 12 Reversed direction. 44 Stat. 577, amended, U.S.C. 151 seq., U.S.C.A. seq. Tunstall Locomotive Firemen Enginemen, 210, 235, 187; Graham 338 232, 70 14, 94 22; Trainmen Howard, 343 768, 72 1022, 96 1283; Wallace Corp. Relations Board, 248, 238, 216; Syres Oil Workers International 350 892, 76 152, 100 785. full, reads: 'The disputes carriers growing agreements rates pay, conditions, including pending unadjusted date approval (June 1934), handled usual manner up chief operating officer disputes; but, failing reach adjustment manner, referred petition appropriate division full supporting data bearing disputes.' 48 1191, 153 (i), 153, subd. 1(i). For reason Slocum Delaware, L. W.R. 339 239, 795, applicable relied Hayes Pacific Cir., 184 337, certiorari denied 340 942, 71 506, 95 680, text decided incorrectly. See, e.g., Leimer State Mutual Life Assur. 108 302; Dioguardi Durning, 139 774; Continental Collieries Shober, 130 631. 203, 232. See Dillard Chesapeake Ohio 199 948; Hughes Tool Co. 147 69, 74, 158 A.L.R. 1165. 8(a)(2), 12(e) (motion definite statement); 12(f) strike portions pleading); 12(c) pleadings); 16 (pre-trial procedure formulation issue); 26—37 (depositions discovery); 56 summary judgment): 15 (right amend).

Category: 8