In the 1943 case General Committee of Adjustment of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers for the Pacific Lines of Southern Pacific Co. v. Southern Pacific Co., et al., a dispute arose between a labor union and its employer, Southern Pacific Company, over wage rates for engineers on certain runs. The union claimed that these rates were in violation of their collective bargaining agreement with the company. When they could not resolve this issue through negotiation or arbitration, it was taken to court where both parties agreed to abide by whatever decision was reached there. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the union stating that under Section 3 First (i) and (m) Railway Labor Act, federal courts have jurisdiction over such disputes when all other avenues have been exhausted without resolution. This ruling established an important precedent regarding labor relations within railway companies as it confirmed that unions can take employers to court if they believe contractual agreements are being violated.

The dissenting opinion in the case of General Committee of Adjustment of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers for the Pacific Lines v. Southern Pacific Co., et al., argued that a federal court should not have jurisdiction over this dispute between a railroad company and its employees' union, as it was essentially an internal matter within the organization. The dissenters believed that such disputes should be resolved through negotiation or arbitration, rather than litigation in federal courts. They also expressed concern about setting a precedent where any disagreement within an organization could potentially lead to legal action at such high levels, which they felt would unnecessarily burden the judicial system and disrupt labor relations by encouraging adversarial relationships instead of cooperative problem-solving strategies.