In the case of National Labor Relations Board v. Acme Industrial Co., 1966, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The dispute arose when Acme Industrial Co. refused to bargain with a union that had been certified by NLRB as an exclusive representative for certain employees within their company. The company argued that some members of this bargaining unit were supervisors and therefore not covered under labor laws protecting collective bargaining rights. However, NLRB maintained that these individuals were not supervisors but rather "leadmen" who did not have sufficient authority to be classified as such. The Supreme Court agreed with NLRB's interpretation, stating it was consistent with congressional intent behind labor laws and affirmed its decision ordering Acme to negotiate with the union.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. ACME INDUSTRIAL CO., Justice Harlan argued that the majority had overstepped its bounds by interpreting labor law in a way that was not intended by Congress. He contended that while it is within the purview of National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to determine whether an employer's conduct interferes with, restrains or coerces employees in their rights under Section 7, it should not be allowed to dictate specific procedures employers must follow during internal investigations into employee misconduct. In his view, this kind of micro-management goes beyond what is necessary to protect employees' rights and instead infringes upon management prerogatives. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential due process issues arising from NLRB's decision-making processes and suggested more deference should be given to courts when reviewing such decisions.