The Boire v. Greyhound Corporation case in 1963 revolved around the issue of whether or not a labor union could represent employees who were technically employed by two separate entities, but worked together as part of one integrated operation. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) had ruled that these workers could be represented by a single union because they constituted an appropriate bargaining unit. However, Greyhound Corporation disagreed and argued that it was not their employer for collective bargaining purposes since another company actually hired and paid the workers. The Supreme Court sided with the NLRB's decision, stating that even though another company formally employed these workers, Greyhound still exercised significant control over their working conditions. Therefore, it was deemed to be a joint employer along with the other company for collective bargaining purposes under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). This ruling set an important precedent regarding how employment relationships are defined within labor law.

In the dissenting opinion for Boire v. Greyhound Corporation, Justice Goldberg argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with both precedent and the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). He contended that under previous rulings, an employer who has a significant degree of control over workers should be considered their employer for purposes of collective bargaining. In this case, he believed Greyhound had sufficient control over its leased drivers to qualify as such. Furthermore, he asserted that by not considering Greyhound as an employer in this context would undermine key objectives of NLRA - promoting industrial peace and protecting employees' rights to organize and bargain collectively. The ruling could potentially allow companies to evade these responsibilities simply by structuring their operations so they do not have complete or exclusive control over workers.