In the case of Metropolitan Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations Board et al., 1982, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Metropolitan Edison Company (Met-Ed). The dispute arose when Met-Ed fired three employees who were also union officials for participating in a work stoppage during ongoing collective bargaining negotiations. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) found that Met-Ed had violated federal labor law by firing these workers and ordered their reinstatement with back pay. However, on appeal to the Supreme Court, it was held that NLRB's interpretation of "unfair labor practice" under Section 8(a)(1) and Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act was incorrect as it did not consider whether there was any antiunion animus or intent to discourage union membership involved in Met-Ed’s decision to fire its employees for violating company policy against work stoppages during contract negotiations.

In the dissenting opinion for Metropolitan Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's ruling that a company's refusal to reinstate striking workers who had engaged in serious misconduct was not an unfair labor practice under Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). He argued that this interpretation contradicted Congress' intent when it enacted NLRA and undermined its purpose to protect employees' rights to engage in concerted activities without fear of retaliation from their employers. According to him, by allowing companies such as Metropolitan Edison Co. to refuse reinstatement based on strike-related misconduct, regardless of whether it was severe or minor, would discourage employees from exercising their right to strike and thus tilt the balance between employers and employees heavily in favor of employers.