Document: 393 U.S. 324 89 S.Ct. 548 21 L.Ed.2d 519 James G. GLOVER et al., Petitioners,v.ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY CO. al. No. 38. Argued Nov. 14, 1968. Decided Jan. 1969. William M. Acker, Jr., Birmingham, Ala., for petitioners. Donald W. Fisher, Toledo, Ohio, respondents. Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The 13 petitioners here, eight Negroes and five white men, are all employees respondent railroad, whose duties to repair maintain passenger freight cars in railroad's yard at Alabama. They brought this action United States District Court against railroad Brotherhood Railway Carmen America, which is duly selected bargaining agent carmen employees. complaint alleged that plaintiffs were qualified by experience do work but had been classified as helpers many years not promoted. went on allege following explanation refusal promote them: 2 'In order avoid calling out Negro promoting Carmen, accordance with a tacit understanding between defendants sub rosa agreement Frisco certain officials Brotherhood, defendant has considerable period time used so-called 'apprentices' instead said required Collective Bargaining Agreement properly customarily interpreted; means giving wage scale permanent jobs classification Carmen. This denial contrary previous custom practice regard seniority far 'Upgrade Carmen' concerned. Defendant any having Carmen.' also claimed each plaintiff lost excess $10,000 wages result being victim 'an invidious racial discrimination,' prayed individual damages, an injunction cause cease desist from their discrimination class 'for further, or different relief may be meet proper * *.' respondents moved dismiss ground, among others, exhausted administrative remedies provided them grievance machinery collective agreement, constitution before National Railroad Adjustment Board. Court, unreported opinion, sustained motion dismiss, then filed amendment complaint: 3 'On occasions through one more number, have complained both representatives Company about foregoing violation Agreement. Said called upon process behalf under Although representative once indicated would 'investigate situation,' nothing concrete was ever done no filed. Other told again: (a) they kidding themselves if thought could get men's jobs; (b) them; (c) file formal waste time. same things local Company. treated condescension Company, sometimes laughed 'cussed,' never taken seriously. When plight attention got substantially treatment received, except 'nigger lovers' just inviting trouble. Both attempted intimidate plaintiffs, white. Plaintiffs completely frustrated efforts present either In addition, employ purported internal within itself only add plaintiffs' frustration and, possible pursue it final conclusion take years. To without cooperation useless formality. Board (a tribunal composed paid Companies Brotherhoods) consume average years, futile instant circumstances where working 'hand-in-glove.' All these wholly inadequate, require complete exhaustion simply laintiffs' expense frustration, exhaust amount 'due law,' prohibited Constitution States.' 4 again dismiss. Appeals affirmed dismissal, agreeing adding several authorities those cited 386 F.2d 452 (C.A.5th Cir. 1967), we granted certiorari, 390 1023, 88 1415, 20 280 (1968). We think none justify dismissal reverse remand case trial 5 It true, here contend, held exclusive jurisdiction, § First (i) Labor Act, set below,1 interpret meaning terms agreement.2 held, however, its own applies 'disputes employee group carrier carriers.' Conley v. Gibson, 355 41, 44, 78 99, 101, 80 (1957). Conley, case, suit union, claiming breach duty fair representation, jurisdiction federal courts clear. course, sought union might remains representation extent discriminatory performance validly entered into lawful terms. See, e.g., Hayes Union Pacific R. Co., 184 337 (C.A.9th 1950), cert. denied, 340 942, 71 506, 95 L.Ed. 680 (1951). view, squarely rejected said, '(F)or reasons forth text believe (Hayes, supra) decided incorrectly.' U.S., n. 4, 101. situation meaningful distinction can drawn negotiating enforcement face. Moreover, although employer made party insure relief, still true essence 'dispute' some hand management together other, 'between Finally, power kind necessary even respect alone, end entirely abuses sore here. therefore exercise over railroad. See Steele Louisville & Nashville 323 192, 65 226, 173 (1944). 6 argue should d smissed because petitioners' failure constitution, Act. rely particularly Republic Steel Corp. Maddox, 379 650, 85 614, 580 (1965), Vaca Sipes, 171, 87 903, 17 842 (1967). clear, requirement subject number exceptions variety situations doctrinaire application rule defeat overall purposes labor relations policy. Thus, stressed: 7 '(I)t settled must least attempt arbitration procedures established agreement. 580. However, contractual devised often controlled employer, well prove unsatisfactory unworkable grievant. problem determine what obtain judicial review his breach-of-contract claim despite secure remedial procedures.' 184—185, 914. 8 specify two fully remedies. call play another most obvious requirement—the effort proceed formally futile. line cases beginning supra, contention alleging submit controversy 'a large part chosen (defendants) whom real made.' 206, 234. And prompted hold did inadequacy remedy apply equal force administered company, both, pass claims very rights charged neglecting betraying. Here alleges clearest absolutely Under circumstances, remedies, easily satisfied repeated complaints company officials, time-consuming formalities demanded them. allegations car acting concert up schemes contrivances bar promotion race. If insistence serve prolong deprivation according justly legally entitled. 9 judgment reversed remanded trial. 10 Reversed remanded. 11 HARLAN, concurring. 12 I join Court's addition reservation. Richardson Texas N.O.R. 242 230 (1957), Fifth Circuit decision supports today's holding grant ancillary who aids abets breaching representation. A bifurcate, needlessly proliferate, litigation. 14 clear footnote (1 57), not—as language ante, 328—329, otherwise imply—address question now decided, first impression only. careful reading Cir., (1950); D.C., 138 F.Supp. 60 (1955), relied Hayes; makes readily apparent our disapproval action. full, reads: 'The disputes carriers growing grievances interpretation agreements concerning rates pay, rules, conditions, including pending unadjusted date approval Act (June 21, 1934), shall handled usual manner chief operating officer designated handle such disputes; but, failing reach adjustment manner, referred petition parties appropriate division full statement facts supporting data bearing disputes.' 48 Stat. 1191, 45 U.S.C. 153 (i). Slocum Delaware, L. W.R. 339 239, 70 577, 94 795.

Category: 8