355 U.S. 41 (1957)
The petitioners, Negro members of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, brought this class suit in a Federal District Court in Texas on behalf of themselves and other Negro employees similarly situated. They sued the Brotherhood, its Local Union No. 28, and officers of both the Brotherhood and Local Union No. 28.1 The petitioners worked for the Texas and New Orleans Railroad at its Houston Freight House, where Local 28 acted as the designated bargaining agent for their unit under the Railway Labor Act.2 A contract between the Union and the Railroad protected employees in the unit from discharge and loss of seniority.3
In May 1954 the Railroad claimed to abolish 45 jobs held by the petitioners or other Negroes, leading to their discharge or demotion.4 The jobs were actually filled by white employees, although a few Negroes were rehired without their prior seniority.5 The Union, following a plan, ignored the petitioners' repeated requests for protection and declined to offer them the same safeguards provided to white employees.6 The complaint also asserted that the Union had failed overall to represent Negro employees equally and in good faith, seeking declaratory judgment, injunction, and damages for the alleged violation of fair representation rights under the Railway Labor Act.7
The respondents moved to dismiss the complaint, contending that the National Railroad Adjustment Board possessed exclusive jurisdiction, that the Railroad was an indispensable party not joined as a defendant, and that the complaint did not state a claim for relief.8 The District Court dismissed the action on the basis of the Adjustment Board's exclusive jurisdiction.9 The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed that dismissal.10
The Supreme Court granted certiorari because the case presented an important question about employee rights under the Railway Labor Act.11
Whether the National Railroad Adjustment Board has exclusive jurisdiction over this controversy between employees and their union?12
No. The complaint's allegations show that petitioners sued the Brotherhood and its local for failing to represent Negro employees fairly in protecting jobs and seniority under the existing contract. No dispute is alleged against the Texas and New Orleans Railroad as employer.15 The suit enforces the statutory duty of fair representation rather than interpreting or applying the collective bargaining agreement against the carrier.16
The National Railroad Adjustment Board does not possess exclusive jurisdiction over this controversy.17
Whether the Texas and New Orleans Railroad is an indispensable party defendant that must be joined?18
The Railroad's rights or interests will not be affected by this action to enforce the duty of the bargaining representative to represent petitioners fairly.19
No. The complaint's allegations describe a class action by Negro employees against the Brotherhood, Local 28, and officers seeking declaratory judgment, injunction, and damages for discriminatory refusal to process grievances, with no relief requested from the Railroad and no prospect that any judgment will bind it or alter its contract rights.20
The Texas and New Orleans Railroad is not an indispensable party that must be joined.21
Whether the complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted?22
Yes. The complaint's allegations detail that the Railroad abolished 45 jobs held by Negro employees and replaced them with whites, that the Union ignored repeated pleas for protection while safeguarding white employees, and that this conduct followed a plan of unequal representation, which if proven constitutes the prohibited invidious discrimination recognized in Steele and related cases.25
The complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted.26
Whether the complaint must set forth specific facts to support its general allegations of discrimination?27
No. The complaint's allegations contain general allegations that the Union failed to represent Negro employees equally and in good faith and refused comparable protection to that given white employees.30 These suffice to notify respondents of the claim of racial discrimination in grievance handling and contract administration.31
The complaint need not set forth specific facts beyond a short and plain statement to survive dismissal.32