In the case of Continental Oil Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 1940, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The issue at hand was whether or not an employer violated Section 8(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act by discharging employees due to their union activities. The NLRB had found that Continental Oil Company did indeed violate these sections by firing three employees because they were involved with a labor organization and for participating in concerted activities for collective bargaining purposes. In its decision, the Supreme Court upheld this finding from NLRB stating that there was substantial evidence supporting it on record as a whole including testimony about anti-union statements made by company officials and actions taken against pro-union workers.

In the dissenting opinion for Continental Oil Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, it was argued that the majority decision overstepped its bounds by interpreting the Wagner Act in a way that extended beyond what Congress had intended when passing this legislation. The dissenters believed that while unions should have protection from employer interference, they also needed to be held accountable for their own actions and not given undue power or influence over employers' rights and business operations. They contended that allowing employees to refuse work as part of a union's bargaining strategy could lead to an imbalance of power between labor and management, potentially causing significant harm to businesses without necessarily benefiting workers in any meaningful way. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential abuses of such tactics by unions at the expense of both employers and non-striking employees who might suffer job loss or other negative consequences as a result.