In the case of Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Co. v. Burley et al., 1944, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a railway company could unilaterally change wage rates without negotiating with its employees' union representatives under the Railway Labor Act (RLA). The dispute arose when Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Company reduced wages for some workers without consulting their unions. The court ruled in favor of the workers and held that unilateral changes to working conditions were not permissible under RLA unless negotiations had reached an impasse or deadlock after all possible avenues for settlement had been exhausted. This decision underscored that employers must engage in good faith bargaining before implementing changes affecting employees' terms and conditions of employment.

In the dissenting opinion for Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Co. v. Burley et al., Justice Frankfurter disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Railway Labor Act and argued that it did not grant courts jurisdiction to review decisions made by Adjustment Boards in labor disputes between railway companies and their employees. He contended that Congress intended these boards to have final authority over such matters, without interference from judicial bodies. Furthermore, he believed that allowing court reviews would undermine the effectiveness of these boards and disrupt labor relations within the industry. The justice also expressed concern about potential bias in favor of employers if courts were allowed to intervene in wage disputes decided by impartial arbitrators on adjustment boards.