◆ SpookStack

i ocfoper Tenxt, wr, /f 3 C4 7924 1 adf0 Per Curiam, 399 U3, Key WOMETCO TELEVISION & THEATRE CO. v. UNITED STATES er at, APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, No, 438, Decided November 12, 1937, Judgment affirmed, Monroe E. Stein and Richard F, Wolfson for appellant, Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Hansen and Charles H. Weston for the United States, and Albert R. Connelly for the Miami Beach Theatre Corporation, appellees, “Per CORAM, ‘The motions to affirm are granted and the judge is » affirmed, LS SWIFT ex ne TRUSTEES OF THE CONCREGS- TION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, BETHEL ‘UNIT, », BOROUGH OF BETHEL, PENNSYLVANIA, pr at APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, No, 437, Decided November 12, 1957, Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, Reported below: 183 Pa. Super. 219, 130 A, 2d 240, Hayden C. Covington for appellants, Arthur WV. Henderson for appellees, Per Curtan. The motion to dismiss is’granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, s] setae - so we ~ . ero OR .- samggernee ster we” ~ ee NYE PEAT EP eT OB ¢ CONLEY v, CIBSON, 41 Syllabus, CONLEY er at. ». GIBSON er ab. CERTIORARI 10 THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. ~ No.7, Argued October 21, 1957 —Decided November 18, 1937. Petitioners, who are Negro members of a union designated as their bargaining agent under the Railway Labor Act, brought a class suit against the union, its brotherhood and certain of their officers tcp them to represent petitioners without discrimination in + protection of their employment and seniority rights under a con tract between the union and the Railroad. ‘They alleged that the Railroad had purported'to abolish 45 jobs held by petitioners and , other Negroes but had employed whites in the same jobs (except * in'a fem instances in which it bad rehired Negroes to fil their old st with loss of seniority) and that, despite repeated pleas, the union had done nothing to protect petitioners from such diserim- instory discharges, ‘The District Court dismissed the euit oo the ‘ ground that the National Railroad-Adjustment Board had exclu. Section 3: First (i) of the Railway Labor Act confers upon the Adjastment Board exclusive jurisdiction only over “disputes betreen an employee or group of employees and a carrier or cari whereas this is a suit by employees against their bangain- ing agent to enforce their statutory right not to be discriminated against by it in bargaining, Pp. H5, . 2, The Railroad was not an indispensable party to this suit, and failure to join it was not a ground for dismissing the sult, P. 45, 3, The complaint adequately set forth a claim upon which relief - could be granted. Pp. 45-18. (a) The fact that, under the Railway Labor Act, aggrieved employees can file their own grievances with the Adjustment Board or sue the employer for breach of contract is no justification for the union's alleged discrimination in refusing to represent petitioners, P, 47, (b) Failure of the complaint to set forth specific facts to Support its general allegations of discrimination was not a suficient pu sve jurisdiction over, the controversy. The a Com al Ape "ae afirmed, Feld: «Twas error to dismiss the complaint for want 1a in, Ex : nef —7-