In the 1983 case of National Labor Relations Board v. International Association of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Ironworkers, Local 480, AFL-CIO, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The issue at hand was whether a union could require non-union members to pay fees for services provided by the union that benefited all workers. The NLRB argued this practice violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and Section 8(b)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act because it coerced employees into joining unions against their will. In its decision, however, the court held that such arrangements were lawful so long as they did not exceed a worker's pro rata share of collective bargaining costs and other expenses directly related to negotiating or administering collective agreements. This ruling affirmed an earlier precedent set by Railway Employees' Dept., A.F.L v Hanson (1956), which allowed "agency shop" arrangements where non-union members are required to contribute financially towards representation costs.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL & ORNAMENTAL IRONWORKERS, LOCAL 480, AFL-CIO (1983), Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Section 8(b)(4) of the National Labor Relations Act. He argued that Congress intended to protect neutral employers from secondary boycotts but not to prohibit all forms of peaceful picketing at a common situs where both primary and secondary employers are located. According to him, such an expansive reading would infringe on First Amendment rights and was inconsistent with previous court decisions which allowed unions some leeway in communicating their disputes through picketing. He also criticized the Board's "reserved gate" doctrine as arbitrary and unworkable because it failed to consider whether there were less restrictive means available for protecting neutrals while preserving union speech rights.