In the case of Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Mullins et al., 1981, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute between a steel corporation and its workers' union over pension fund contributions. The central issue was whether an employer could challenge the validity of a collective bargaining agreement under federal law after having agreed to it in good faith negotiations with labor unions. Kaiser Steel Corporation had signed such an agreement but later argued that certain provisions were illegal because they required payments into funds for employees who did not perform work related to coal production, which violated the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). However, the court ruled against Kaiser Steel Corporation stating that employers cannot unilaterally void agreements they have willingly entered into unless there is clear evidence of fraud or duress in their formation process. The court held that allowing otherwise would undermine stability and predictability in labor relations.

In the dissenting opinion for Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Mullins, Justice William Rehnquist disagreed with the majority's interpretation of federal labor law and its application to this case. He argued that the Court had overstepped its bounds by interpreting a collective bargaining agreement in favor of a union when it was not clear whether or not such an agreement existed between Kaiser Steel Corporation and United Mine Workers (UMW). According to him, there were no explicit provisions within their contract that required arbitration before seeking judicial enforcement of any alleged violations. Furthermore, he contended that even if such an obligation could be inferred from other parts of their contract, it should have been up to lower courts - rather than Supreme Court - to make this determination based on factual evidence presented during trial proceedings. Therefore, he believed that the decision should have been reversed and remanded back down for further consideration.