The U.S. Supreme Court case Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Railway Labor Executives' Association et al., 1988, revolved around the issue of whether an employer is required to bargain with a union over its decision to implement a program for testing employees for drug and alcohol use following certain incidents at work. The court held that such decisions are not subject to mandatory bargaining under the Railway Labor Act because they pertain more closely to "management prerogatives" than working conditions. However, it also ruled that employers must negotiate over the effects of these decisions on workers, including disciplinary actions taken as a result of positive test results.

In the dissenting opinion for Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Railway Labor Executives' Association et al., Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Marshall and Blackmun, argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established precedent regarding the interpretation of labor contracts under the Railway Labor Act (RLA). They contended that Conrail's unilateral change to its alcohol and drug testing policy constituted a "major dispute" under RLA, requiring negotiation with unions before implementation. The dissenters disagreed with the majority’s view that this issue fell within Conrail’s managerial prerogative or was covered by existing agreements. They also expressed concern about potential Fourth Amendment violations due to lack of individualized suspicion in conducting tests. Furthermore, they criticized how broad management rights clauses were interpreted as giving employers carte blanche authority over any subject not explicitly addressed in collective bargaining agreements - an approach which could undermine future union negotiations.