In the case of National Labor Relations Board v. Action Automotive, Inc., 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed whether an employer's refusal to bargain with a union over a decision to shut down part of its business violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The court held that such decisions are not subject to mandatory bargaining under NLRA unless they are made primarily for labor-related reasons. In this case, Action Automotive decided to close one of its two locations due to financial difficulties and did not consult with or seek approval from the union representing its employees before making this decision. The NLRB found that this was a violation of NLRA as it constituted unilateral action on a matter requiring collective bargaining. However, upon review by the Supreme Court, it was determined that since Action Automotive’s decision wasn't primarily based on labor costs but rather overall economic factors outside their control; therefore it didn’t violate any provisions within NLRA.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. ACTION AUTOMOTIVE, INC., 1984, it was argued that Action Automotive did not violate any labor laws by refusing to bargain with a union representing its employees. The dissenting justices believed that there was no substantial evidence supporting the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) finding that Action Automotive had committed an unfair labor practice. They contended that the NLRB failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Action Automotive refused to negotiate in good faith with its workers' chosen representative. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority’s interpretation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of National Labor Relations Act which led them conclude on company’s violation; instead they held view these sections do not impose obligation on employers to reach agreement but only necessitates sincere effort towards reaching one.