The U.S. Supreme Court case National Labor Relations Board v. Local Union No. 103, International Association of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO et al., revolved around the issue of whether a union could require non-union members to pay fees for collective bargaining and contract administration services provided by the union on their behalf. The court ruled in favor of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), stating that unions could indeed charge such fees to non-members as long as they were proportionate to costs incurred by the union in providing these services and did not include charges for political or ideological activities unrelated to collective bargaining or contract administration. This decision affirmed an earlier ruling made by NLRB which had been challenged by Local Union No. 103.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. LOCAL UNION NO. 103, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold an NLRB order against a union for refusing to admit non-union workers into its hiring hall violated established labor law principles and precedent. The dissenters believed that unions should have discretion in operating their hiring halls and determining membership criteria, as long as they do not discriminate based on race or other protected categories under federal law. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), arguing that this provision does not prohibit all forms of economic pressure by unions but only those which restrain or coerce employees in exercising their rights under Section 7 of NLRA. In this view, a union’s refusal to refer non-members from its exclusive hiring hall did not amount to restraint or coercion within meaning of NLRA.