In the case of Arthur Groves, Bobby J. Evans and Local 771, International Union UAW v. Ring Screw Works, Ferndale Fastener Division (1990), the United States Supreme Court was asked to consider whether an employer had violated federal labor laws by refusing to arbitrate a dispute over employee layoffs with their union. The employees were laid off after they refused to accept wage reductions proposed by their employer during contract negotiations. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the workers and ordered arbitration as per collective bargaining agreement between both parties. However, on appeal before the Supreme Court, it was held that while employers are generally required under federal law to bargain in good faith with unions over terms and conditions of employment including wages; this obligation does not extend so far as requiring them to submit disputes about economic concessions demanded during impasse negotiations for binding arbitration unless there is explicit provision for such within their collective bargaining agreement. The court therefore reversed the decision from lower courts stating that since no specific language existed in said agreement compelling either party towards arbitration regarding demands made at negotiation impasses; Ring Screw Works' refusal did not constitute unfair labor practice.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Arthur Groves, Bobby J. Evans and Local 771, International Union UAW v. Ring Screw Works, Ferndale Fastener Division argued that the majority's decision to deny enforcement of an arbitration award was incorrect because it failed to respect the arbitrator's interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The dissent emphasized that courts should defer to an arbitrator’s judgment unless it can be shown that they acted outside their authority or ignored clear contractual language. In this case, there was no evidence suggesting such misconduct by the arbitrator; instead he made a reasonable determination based on his understanding of ambiguous contract terms related to employee layoffs and recalls. Therefore, according to the dissenting justices' view, his decision should have been upheld rather than overruled by judicial intervention.