In the case of Hines et al. v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., et al., 1975, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that an employer cannot fire employees for dishonesty based on evidence they were not allowed to see or challenge. The plaintiffs in this case were three truck drivers who had been fired by their employer, Anchor Motor Freight, after being accused of falsifying expense reports. They filed a grievance through their union and won reinstatement with back pay at arbitration; however, when they tried to return to work they found out that criminal charges had been filed against them over the same allegations and thus could not be rehired until those charges were resolved (which was company policy). The court held that due process required allowing these workers access to any evidence used against them so as to have an opportunity for rebuttal before termination decisions are made.

The dissenting opinion in the Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., case argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established precedent regarding labor arbitration and collective bargaining agreements. The dissent contended that the Court had traditionally held that an arbitrator's interpretation of such agreements should be final and binding unless it could be shown to have been made in bad faith or as a result of fraud or dishonesty. However, they believed this ruling allowed for judicial review of an arbitrator’s decision based on its perceived reasonableness, which undermined the authority and autonomy of labor arbitration proceedings. They also expressed concern about potential negative impacts on future labor relations due to increased uncertainty surrounding enforcement of collective bargaining agreement provisions.