The Central Hardware Co. v. National Labor Relations Board case in 1971 revolved around the issue of whether a company's refusal to bargain with a union, which represented its warehouse and delivery employees but not its retail store employees, violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The U.S Supreme Court ruled that it did violate the NLRA because all of these workers shared "a community of interest". This meant they had similar hours, wages, and working conditions; thus they could be grouped together for collective bargaining purposes even if some worked in different locations or departments within the company. Therefore, by refusing to negotiate with this union on behalf of all such employees under its employ - regardless where they were stationed - Central Hardware was found guilty of unfair labor practices as per Section 8(a)(5) and (1)of NLRA.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Central Hardware Co. v. National Labor Relations Board argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established labor law principles and an unwarranted intrusion into business operations. The dissent contended that the company's warehouse employees were not engaged in "labor organization" activities as defined by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, but rather were involved in internal management decisions about work assignments and schedules - matters traditionally left to employer discretion. They also disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of “mutual aid or protection” clause, arguing it should be limited to issues directly related to employment conditions such as wages, hours or working conditions rather than broadly interpreted to include any issue affecting employee interests at large. Furthermore, they expressed concern over potential implications for future cases where employers could be forced into collective bargaining on virtually any subject matter under this broadened definition.