In the case of International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., Communications Equipment & Systems Division v. Local 134, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO et al., 1974, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a labor dispute concerning unfair labor practices and collective bargaining agreements. The court had to decide whether an employer could be compelled by law to arbitrate grievances under a collective bargaining agreement that expired while litigation was pending before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). ITT refused to arbitrate disputes after their contract with Local 134 expired. The Union filed charges against ITT for refusing arbitration as per their agreement. The NLRB ruled in favor of ITT stating that they were not obligated to continue arbitration post expiration date unless explicitly stated in the contract terms or if both parties mutually agreed upon it. However, on appeal, this decision was reversed by Seventh Circuit Court which held that duty to arbitrate survived contract termination until a new agreement was reached or negotiation impasse occurred.

The dissenting opinion in the case of International Telephone & Telegraph Corp. v. Local 134, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO argued that the majority's decision to uphold an arbitrator's ruling was incorrect because it failed to properly interpret and apply federal labor law. The dissenters believed that the arbitrator had overstepped his authority by imposing a remedy not provided for in the collective bargaining agreement between ITT and its unionized employees. They also contended that this imposition violated established principles of contract interpretation under federal labor law, which require courts to respect parties' negotiated agreements unless they clearly violate public policy or statutory rights. Therefore, according to these justices, while arbitration is generally favored as a means of resolving disputes under collective bargaining agreements due to its efficiency and expertise advantages over litigation in courtrooms; it should not be allowed when such decisions are contrary to explicit contractual provisions or legal standards.