In the Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc., 1987 case, Linda Lingle filed a complaint against her employer for retaliatory discharge after she had filed a worker's compensation claim. The company argued that the issue was already covered by their collective bargaining agreement and should be resolved through arbitration rather than litigation. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Lingle stating that even though an action may constitute as "unfair labor practice" under National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), it can still be pursued independently as a violation of state law if it involves conduct that is separate from employment conditions outlined in the collective bargaining agreement. This decision clarified how federal labor laws interact with state tort laws and affirmed employees' rights to seek remedies outside of those provided by their union contracts.

In the dissenting opinion for Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc., Justice Powell argued that the majority's decision to allow a union member to pursue a state law claim for retaliatory discharge despite an existing arbitration clause in her collective bargaining agreement undermines federal labor policy favoring arbitration. He contended that allowing such claims could potentially disrupt industrial peace and stability by encouraging litigation over arbitration as a means of resolving disputes. Furthermore, he expressed concern that this ruling would lead to inconsistent results between arbitrators and courts on similar issues, thereby undermining confidence in the arbitral process. In his view, if there is any doubt about whether Congress intended certain types of claims to be resolved through arbitration under federal labor laws, it should be resolved in favor of coverage rather than exclusion.