In the case of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, President of District 65, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union AFL-CIO (1963), the Supreme Court ruled that an arbitrator should decide whether a dispute was subject to arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement between John Wiley & Sons publishing company and its unionized employees. The court held that federal courts have limited jurisdiction over labor disputes due to the Labor Management Relations Act but can compel arbitration if it is unclear whether a particular grievance falls within an agreed-upon arbitration clause in a contract. This decision reinforced the importance of resolving labor disputes through private mechanisms like arbitration rather than litigation whenever possible.

In the dissenting opinion for John Wiley & Sons, Inc., v. Livingston, Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's decision to allow a union to compel arbitration over an employer's objections. He argued that under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), federal courts should not enforce collective bargaining agreements in such a broad manner without clear evidence that both parties intended for this specific dispute to be resolved through arbitration. In his view, there was no explicit agreement between John Wiley & Sons and District 65 regarding disputes about pension funds or seniority rights; thus these issues were outside of their agreed-upon arbitration clause. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential judicial overreach by imposing an obligation on employers beyond what they had explicitly consented to in their contracts with unions.