In the case of National Labor Relations Board v. Ochoa Fertilizer Corp., 1961, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB had found that Ochoa Fertilizer Corporation and its subsidiary violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to bargain with a union which was certified as a bargaining representative for their employees. The companies argued that they were not obligated to negotiate because there was an ongoing dispute about whether certain workers should be included in or excluded from the bargaining unit. However, this argument was rejected by both lower courts and finally by Supreme Court too, stating that such disputes do not relieve employers from their duty to bargain on other issues while those matters are being resolved.

In the dissenting opinion for the National Labor Relations Board v. Ochoa Fertilizer Corp., it was argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the majority's conclusion that Ochoa had engaged in unfair labor practices. The dissenters believed that, while some of Ochoa's actions may have been questionable, they did not necessarily constitute a violation of employees' rights under the National Labor Relations Act. They also took issue with what they saw as an overly broad interpretation of "unfair labor practice," arguing that this could potentially infrive on employers' rights and create undue burdens for businesses. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's decision to enforce a bargaining order against Ochoa without first requiring additional proof of ongoing anti-union animus or activity by the company.