The U.S. Supreme Court case Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, Local No. 427, AFL, et al. v. Fairlawn Meats, Inc., in 1956 involved a dispute between a labor union and an employer over the interpretation of their collective bargaining agreement regarding wage rates for employees working on Sundays and holidays. The union argued that the contract required double pay for such work while the employer contended it only mandated time-and-a-half compensation. When arbitration failed to resolve this disagreement, both parties sought judicial intervention with conflicting results from lower courts leading to escalation to the Supreme Court level. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Fairlawn Meats stating that under federal law (the Taft-Hartley Act), jurisdiction over disputes arising out of differing interpretations or applications of existing collective bargaining agreements lies primarily with arbitrators rather than courts unless there is clear evidence that arbitration would be futile or inadequate remedy exists within arbitral processes themselves.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, Local No. 427, AFL, et al. v. Fairlawn Meats, Inc., argued that the majority's decision to uphold an injunction against a labor union for picketing was incorrect and potentially harmful to labor rights as a whole. The dissenters believed that peaceful picketing should be protected under the First Amendment right to free speech and assembly; they also pointed out inconsistencies with previous court rulings on similar issues which had upheld unions' rights to protest peacefully without interference from employers or courts. They feared this ruling could set a dangerous precedent by allowing businesses too much power over their employees' ability to fight for better working conditions and wages through collective action.