The case of Auciello Iron Works, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in 1995 revolved around the issue of collective bargaining agreements and their expiration dates. The NLRB had ruled that Auciello Iron Works was guilty of unfair labor practices for refusing to negotiate a new contract with its unionized workers after the existing agreement expired, even though it continued to abide by most terms of the old contract. The company argued that because they were adhering to most aspects of the previous agreement, they were not obligated to enter into a new one until both parties agreed on all points. However, this argument was rejected by both lower courts and eventually by Supreme Court as well which upheld NLRB's decision unanimously stating that an employer is required under federal law (National Labor Relations Act) to bargain in good faith over a new contract when an old one expires regardless if some or most conditions from expired contracts are still being followed.

The dissenting opinion in the Auciello Iron Works, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board case argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous court rulings and labor law principles. The dissenters believed that an employer should not be required to bargain with a union if there is substantial evidence of employee disinterest or opposition towards it, even if no formal decertification petition has been filed. They pointed out that forcing employers to negotiate under such circumstances could potentially undermine employees' rights rather than protect them as intended by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Furthermore, they contended that this ruling might encourage unions to avoid elections when their support is dwindling because they can still compel bargaining until an official decertification occurs.