In the case of Linden Lumber Division, Summer & Co. v. National Labor Relations Board et al., 1974, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The issue at hand was whether an employer's withdrawal from a multi-employer bargaining unit after impasse but before agreement or settlement violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act. The court held that such withdrawal is not necessarily unlawful; it depends on circumstances surrounding each case. In this particular instance, however, Linden Lumber had unlawfully withdrawn because they did so without any unusual circumstances that would justify their action and without notifying other members about their intention to withdraw or seeking their consent beforehand.

In the dissenting opinion for Linden Lumber Division, Summer & Co. v. National Labor Relations Board et al., Justice William O. Douglas argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established labor law principles and could potentially undermine workers' rights to unionize without employer interference or retaliation. He contended that by allowing employers to withdraw recognition of a union based on an anti-union petition signed by employees, even if it is later revealed that such petition was tainted with unfair labor practices committed by the employer, would essentially reward employers for their unlawful conduct and discourage employees from exercising their right to self-organization and collective bargaining under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on "good faith doubt" as a defense for employers who commit unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of NLRA since this concept has no basis in statutory language or legislative history.