Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Conley v. Gibson 355 U.S. 41, 78 S.ct.99

Conley v. Gibson 355 U.S. 41, 78 S.ct.99

Ratings: (0)|Views: 93 |Likes:
Published by Thalia Sanders
Action for declaratory judgment and for other relief.
The United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division, 138
F.Supp. 60, rendered judgment dismissing the complaint.
Plaintiffs appealed. The United States Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 229 F.2d 436, affirmed.
The plaintiffs brought certiorari. The Supreme
Court, Mr. Justice Black, held that complaint,
filed by Negro railway employees against
their union, sufficiently alleged breach of union's
statutory duty to represent fairly and without hostile
discrimination all of the employees in the union.
Reversed and remanded to District Court with direction.
Action for declaratory judgment and for other relief.
The United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division, 138
F.Supp. 60, rendered judgment dismissing the complaint.
Plaintiffs appealed. The United States Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 229 F.2d 436, affirmed.
The plaintiffs brought certiorari. The Supreme
Court, Mr. Justice Black, held that complaint,
filed by Negro railway employees against
their union, sufficiently alleged breach of union's
statutory duty to represent fairly and without hostile
discrimination all of the employees in the union.
Reversed and remanded to District Court with direction.

More info:

Published by: Thalia Sanders on Jun 24, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/24/2010

pdf

text

original

 
Supreme Court of the United StatesJ. D. CONLEY et al., Petitioners,v.Pat J. GIBSON, General Chairman of Locals 6051and 28, etc., et al.
No. 7.
Argued Oct. 21, 1957.Decided Nov. 18, 1957.Action for declaratory judgment and for other re-lief. The United States District Court for the South-ern District of Texas, Houston Division,138F.Supp. 60,rendered judgment dismissing the com-plaint. Plaintiffs appealed. The United States Courtof Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,229 F.2d 436,af- firmed. The plaintiffs brought certiorari. The Su-preme Court, Mr. Justice Black, held that com-plaint, filed by Negro railway employees againsttheir union, sufficiently alleged breach of union'sstatutory duty to represent fairly and without hostilediscrimination all of the employees in the union.Reversed and remanded to District Court with dir-ection.West Headnotes
[1]Labor and Employment 231H 1209(1)
231HLabor and Employment231HXIILabor Relations231HXII(D)Bargaining Representatives 231Hk1207Duty to Act Impartially andWithout Discrimination; Fair Representation231Hk1209Discrimination231Hk1209(1)k. In general.MostCited Cases(Formerly 232Ak219 Labor Relations)An exclusive bargaining agent under the RailwayLabor Act is obligated to represent all employees inthe bargaining unit fairly and without discrimina-tion because of race, and the courts have power toprotect employees against such invidious discrimin-ation. Railway Labor Act, s 1 et seq., as amended45 U.S.C.A. s 151 et seq.
[2]Federal Courts 170B 459
170BFederal Courts170BVIISupreme Court170BVII(B)Review of Decisions of Courts of Appeals170Bk455Decisions Reviewable andGrounds for Issuance170Bk459. Labor relations and standards; employers' liability.Most Cited Cases(Formerly 106k383(1))Where case raised an important question concern-ing protection of employee rights under RailwayLabor Act, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.Railway Labor Act, § 1 et seq. as amended45U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.
[3]Labor and Employment 231H 1535
231HLabor and Employment231HXIILabor Relations231HXII(H)Alternative Dispute Resolution 231HXII(H)2Matters Subject to Arbitra-tion231Hk1525Particular Disputes231Hk1535k. Discrimination.MostCited Cases(Formerly 232Ak416.6, 232Ak416 Labor Rela-tions)Suit by Negro railway employees against their bar-gaining agent to enforce their statutory right not tobe unfairly discriminated against by agent in bar-gaining involved no dispute between employeesand employer and the collective bargaining agree-ment would be at most only incidentally involved,and consequently provision in Railway Labor Act,giving jurisdiction to railroad adjustment board indispute between employees and carrier growing outof interpretation of application of agreement did notdeprive the court of jurisdiction. Railway Labor78 S.Ct. 99 Page 1355 U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99, 41 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2089, 9 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 439, 1 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 9656,2 L.Ed.2d 80, 33 Lab.Cas. P 71,077
(Cite as: 355 U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99)
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
 
Act, § 3, subd. 1(i) as amended45 U.S.C.A. § 153, subd. 1(i).
[4]Labor and Employment 231H 1219(5)
231HLabor and Employment231HXIILabor Relations231HXII(D)Bargaining Representatives 231Hk1207Duty to Act Impartially andWithout Discrimination; Fair Representation231Hk1219Actions forBreach of Duty231Hk1219(5)k. Parties; standing.Most Cited Cases(Formerly 232Ak760 Labor Relations)In action by Negro railway employees against theirrailway union to enforce their statutory right not tobe unlawfully discriminated against by the union inbargaining, the railway was not an indispensableparty. Railway Labor Act, § 1 et seq. as amended45 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.
[5]Federal Civil Procedure 170A 1773
170AFederal Civil Procedure170AXIDismissal170AXI(B)Involuntary Dismissal 170AXI(B)3Pleading, Defects In, in Gen-eral170Ak1773k. Clear or certain natureof insufficiency.Most Cited CasesA complaint should not be dismissed for failure tostate a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that theplaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of hisclaim which would entitle him to relief.Fed.RulesCiv.Proc. rule 12, 28 U.S.C.A.
[6]Labor and Employment 231H 1219(8)
231HLabor and Employment231HXIILabor Relations231HXII(D)Bargaining Representatives 231Hk1207Duty to Act Impartially andWithout Discrimination; Fair Representation231Hk1219Actions forBreach of Duty231Hk1219(8)k. Pleading.Most Cited Cases(Formerly 232Ak764 Labor Relations)Complaint, filed by Negro railway employeesagainst their union, sufficiently alleged breach of union's statutory duty to represent fairly andwithout hostile discrimination all of the employeesin the union, and adequately set forth the claim andgave the union fair notice of its basis.Fed.RulesCiv.Proc. rule 8(a) (2), 28 U.S.C.A.
[7]Labor and Employment 231H 1209(1)
231HLabor and Employment231HXIILabor Relations231HXII(D)Bargaining Representatives 231Hk1207Duty to Act Impartially andWithout Discrimination; Fair Representation231Hk1209Discrimination231Hk1209(1)k. In general.MostCited Cases(Formerly 232Ak219 Labor Relations)Under Railway Labor Act, bargaining agent cannotdiscriminate among those whom it represents eitherin negotiating the collective agreement or in mak-ing day to day adjustments in the agreement andother working rules and in resolving new problemsnot covered by existing agreement and in protectingemployee rights already secured by agreement.Railway Labor Act, § 1 et seq. as amended45U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.
[8]Labor and Employment 231H 1209(1)
231HLabor and Employment231HXIILabor Relations231HXII(D)Bargaining Representatives 231Hk1207Duty to Act Impartially andWithout Discrimination; Fair Representation231Hk1209Discrimination231Hk1209(1)k. In general.MostCited Cases(Formerly 232Ak219 Labor Relations)The fact that under the Railway Labor Act ag-grieved railway employees can file their own griev-ances with railroad adjustment board or can sue78 S.Ct. 99 Page 2355 U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99, 41 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2089, 9 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 439, 1 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 9656,2 L.Ed.2d 80, 33 Lab.Cas. P 71,077
(Cite as: 355 U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99)
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
 
employer for breach of contract furnishes no sanc-tion for union's alleged discrimination in refusing torepresent Negro members of union. Railway LaborAct, § 1 et seq. as amended45 U.S.C.A. § 151 etseq.
[9]Labor and Employment 231H 1209(1)
231HLabor and Employment231HXIILabor Relations231HXII(D)Bargaining Representatives 231Hk1207Duty to Act Impartially andWithout Discrimination; Fair Representation231Hk1209Discrimination231Hk1209(1)k. In general.MostCited Cases(Formerly 232Ak219 Labor Relations)Once railway union undertakes to bargain orpresent grievances for some of the employees itrepresents it cannot refuse to take similar action ingood faith for other employees just because theyare Negroes. Railway Labor Act, § 1 et seq. asamended45 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.
[10]Federal Civil Procedure 170A 623
170AFederal Civil Procedure170AVIIPleadings and Motions170AVII(A)Pleadings in General 170Ak623k. Nature and purpose.MostCited CasesUnder the federal rules, the purpose of pleading isto facilitate a proper decision on the merits.Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rules 8(a)(2)(f ),12(c, e, f ),15, 16,26-37,56, 28 U.S.C.A.
**100 *42
Mr. Joseph C. Waddy, Washington,D.C., for petitioners.Mr. Edward J. Hickey, Jr., Washington, D.C., forrespondent.Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of theCourt.[1]Once again Negro employees are here under theRailway Labor ActFN1asking that their collectivebargaining agent be compelled to represent themfairly. In a series of cases beginning withSteele v.Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 323 U.S. 192,65S.Ct. 226, 89 L.Ed. 173,this Court has emphatic-ally and repeatedly ruled that an exclusive bargain-ing agent under the Railway Labor Act is obligatedto represent all employees in the bargaining unitfairly and without discrimination because of raceand has held that the courts have power to protectemployees against such invidiousdiscrimination.FN2FN1.44 Stat. 577, as amended,45 U.S.C. s151 et seq.,45 U.S.C.A. s 151 et seq. FN2.Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomot-ive Firemen & Enginemen, 323 U.S. 210,65 S.Ct. 235, 89 L.Ed.187;Graham v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen&Enginemen, 338 U.S. 232, 70 S.Ct. 14, 94L.Ed. 22;Brotherhood of Railroad Train- men v. Howard, 343 U.S. 768, 72 S.Ct.1022, 96 L.Ed. 1283;Cf.Wallace Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 323 U.S.248, 65 S.Ct. 238, 89 L.Ed. 216;Syres v.Oil Workers International Union, 350 U.S.892, 76 S.Ct. 152, 100 L.Ed. 785.This class suit was brought in a Federal DistrictCourt in Texas by certain Negro members of theBrotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, pe-titioners here, on behalf of themselves and otherNegro employees similarly situated against theBrotherhood, its Local Union No. 28 and certain of-ficers of both. In summary, the complaint
*43
madethe following allegations relevant to our decision:Petitioners were employees of the Texas and NewOrleans Railroad at its Houston Freight House.Local 28 of the Brotherhood was the designatedbargaining agents under the Railway Labor Act forthe bargaining unit to which petitioners belonged.A contract existed between the Union and the Rail-road which gave the employees in the bargainingunit certain protection from discharge and loss of seniority. In May 1954, the Railroad purported toabolish 45 jobs held by petitioners or other Negroes78 S.Ct. 99 Page 3355 U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99, 41 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2089, 9 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 439, 1 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 9656,2 L.Ed.2d 80, 33 Lab.Cas. P 71,077
(Cite as: 355 U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99)
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->