In the case of International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, et al. v. Central Airlines, Inc., 1962, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that federal courts have jurisdiction to enforce collective bargaining agreements made under the Railway Labor Act (RLA). The dispute arose when Central Airlines refused to arbitrate a grievance filed by an employee who was represented by the International Association of Machinists union. The airline argued that it had no obligation to arbitrate because its agreement with the union did not specifically provide for arbitration in this type of situation. However, both lower courts and ultimately the Supreme Court disagreed with this argument. The court held that while RLA does not explicitly require arbitration clauses in all labor contracts; it does mandate "the prompt and orderly settlement" of disputes arising out such contracts which implicitly includes enforcement through arbitration if necessary. Therefore, even though their contract didn't expressly state so; Central Airlines was still obligated to participate in mandatory arbitration as per their collective bargaining agreement with IAM.

The dissenting opinion in the case of International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, et al. v. Central Airlines, Inc., argued that the majority's decision to allow federal courts jurisdiction over labor disputes was a misinterpretation of the Railway Labor Act (RLA). The dissenters believed that this ruling undermined and bypassed the National Mediation Board’s role as established by Congress under RLA for resolving such disputes. They contended that it would lead to an increase in litigation and potentially disrupt industrial peace due to inconsistent court rulings on similar issues across different jurisdictions. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential bias from local judges who may favor their community's interests over national labor policy objectives.