In the case of Houston Insulation Contractors Association v. National Labor Relations Board, 1966, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The dispute arose when several insulation contractors in Houston formed an association and agreed to a collective bargaining agreement with a union that represented their employees. However, one contractor refused to sign this agreement and was subsequently expelled from the association. This led to a complaint being filed with NLRB alleging unfair labor practices by both parties -the contractor for refusing to bargain collectively and the association for expelling him due to his refusal. The NLRB found both parties guilty but only ordered remedial action against the association which appealed this decision all way up to Supreme Court arguing it had no obligation under law towards non-member firms or individuals. The court upheld NLRB's ruling stating that while individual employers have right not join associations or agree collective bargaining agreements, they cannot be penalized by such associations if they choose exercise these rights; thus affirming protection provided by National Labor Relations Act extends beyond just employees also includes employers who refuse participate in concerted activities.

In the dissenting opinion for Houston Insulation Contractors Association v. National Labor Relations Board, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a ruling by the NLRB - which found that an employer association had committed unfair labor practices by refusing to bargain with a union representing its employees - was incorrect. The dissent contended that there were significant issues regarding representation and jurisdiction in this case, as well as concerns about whether or not certain actions constituted refusal to bargain under federal law. It also questioned if the NLRB had overstepped its authority in making such determinations without clear legislative guidance from Congress on these matters. Ultimately, they believed that upholding this ruling could potentially infringe upon employers' rights and set a dangerous precedent for future cases involving labor disputes.