In the case of National Labor Relations Board v. E.C. Atkins & Co., 1946, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB had accused E.C. Atkins & Co., a company that manufactured saws and other tools, of unfair labor practices for refusing to bargain with its employees' chosen representative union and interfering with their rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The court held that these actions were indeed violations of Sections 8(1) and 8(5) respectively, which prohibit employers from interfering with workers' self-organization efforts or refusal to negotiate in good faith with their representatives. This decision affirmed both the authority of unions as legitimate bargaining agents for workers and reinforced employers’ obligation under federal law to engage constructively with them.

In the dissenting opinion for the National Labor Relations Board v. E.C. Atkins & Co., Justice Frankfurter, joined by Justices Reed and Burton, disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "employer" under Section 2(2) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). They argued that Congress did not intend to include wholly-owned subsidiaries in its definition when it amended NLRA in 1947. The dissenters believed that if Congress had intended such a broad interpretation, it would have explicitly stated so in legislative history or statutory language. Furthermore, they contended that this expansive reading could lead to absurd results where an employer might be held liable for labor practices over which they had no control simply because they owned stock in another company engaging in those practices. Therefore, according to them, E.C Atkins & Co., as a subsidiary corporation should not be considered an 'employer' within NLRA’s meaning unless there is evidence showing direct control over labor relations.