The U.S. Supreme Court case Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co. v. National Labor Relations Board et al., 1949, revolved around the issue of whether an employer could lawfully discharge employees for their refusal to abandon a strike that was deemed illegal under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The court ruled in favor of Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co., stating that employers have the right to fire workers who participate in unlawful strikes and refuse to cease such activities when asked by their employer. This decision upheld an earlier ruling by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals which had reversed a decision made by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ordering reinstatement with back pay for discharged strikers at one of Colgate's plants. The Supreme Court held that while NLRA protects lawful concerted activities, it does not protect those which are carried out in violation of its provisions or other federal laws.

In the dissenting opinion for Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co. v. National Labor Relations Board et al., Justice Robert H. Jackson disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold an order by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) that required Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Company to reinstate employees who had been fired due to their union activities, and compensate them for lost wages. He argued that this ruling was a departure from previous decisions where reinstatement was not ordered if it would cause undue hardship on employers or disrupt harmonious labor relations in workplaces. Furthermore, he contended that there were no findings of fact supporting such an order in this case, making it arbitrary and capricious under administrative law standards.