In the case of Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, et al. v. National Labor Relations Board (1959), the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a union's refusal to admit non-white workers as members violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The Communications Workers of America had been charged with unfair labor practices for denying membership and thus employment opportunities at Southern Bell Telephone Company to African American workers based on their race. The Union argued that it did not violate NLRA because they offered "non-member" status which allowed these individuals access to employment but without full benefits or voting rights within the union itself. However, this argument was rejected by both lower courts and eventually by the Supreme Court too. The court ruled unanimously in favor of NLRB stating that such discriminatory practices were indeed violations under Section 8(b)4(A) of NLRA since it resulted in encouraging an employer i.e., Southern Bell Telephone Co., in this case, to discriminate against certain employees contrary to Section 8(a)(3). This landmark decision underscored federal commitment towards ending racial discrimination within unions thereby ensuring equal opportunity for all irrespective of color or creed.

In the dissenting opinion for Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO v. National Labor Relations Board, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold an employer's right to fire striking workers who had engaged in sit-down strikes was a misinterpretation of labor law and precedent. The dissenters believed that this ruling would unfairly tip the balance of power towards employers at the expense of workers' rights. They pointed out that while sit-down strikes may be disruptive, they are often used by employees as a last resort when other forms of protest have failed or been blocked by management. Furthermore, they noted that previous court decisions had recognized such tactics as legitimate expressions of collective bargaining power under certain circumstances. Therefore, according to these justices, punishing strikers with termination is not only disproportionate but also undermines fundamental principles underlying American labor relations policy: namely encouraging negotiation between parties and protecting employees from retaliation for union activities.