In the case of National Labor Relations Board v. Dant et al., doing business as Dant & Russell, Ltd., 1952, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The dispute arose when an employer refused to bargain with a union that had been certified by NLRB as representing its employees. The employer argued that it was not obligated to negotiate because some members of the bargaining unit were supervisors and thus excluded from collective bargaining under Section 2(3) of the National Labor Relations Act. However, this argument was rejected by both NLRB and later on appeal at Supreme Court level. It held that even if there were supervisory personnel included inappropriately within a bargaining unit, their presence would not invalidate certification or relieve an employer from duty to bargain with properly designated representative for remaining employees who are entitled to such representation.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. DANT ET AL., Justice Robert H. Jackson argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles and precedent regarding labor relations law, specifically in relation to unfair labor practices by employers. He contended that an employer should not be held liable for refusing to bargain with a union if there is reasonable doubt about its representative status, especially when such doubts are caused by actions of the National Labor Relations Board itself. Furthermore, he expressed concern over potential misuse or abuse of power by administrative agencies like NLRB without proper checks and balances in place.