In the case of National Labor Relations Board v. Pittsburgh Steamship Co., 1950, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The dispute arose when Pittsburgh Steamship Company refused to bargain with a union that had been certified by NLRB as an exclusive representative for its unlicensed deck department employees. The company argued that these employees were supervisors and thus excluded from collective bargaining under Section 2(11) of the Taft-Hartley Act. However, after examining their duties and responsibilities, it was determined they did not have genuine managerial authority but rather performed routine tasks without exercising independent judgment or discretion over other workers. Therefore, they could not be classified as 'supervisors'. Hence, NLRB's order requiring the company to cease and desist from refusing to bargain collectively with this group was upheld by the court.

The dissenting opinion in the case of NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. PITTSBURGH STEAMSHIP CO., 1950, argued that the majority's interpretation of "employee" under Section 2(3) of the National Labor Relations Act was too narrow and inconsistent with Congress' intent. The dissent believed that this restrictive definition excluded a significant number of workers from protection under labor laws, specifically those who were temporarily laid off or not currently working due to seasonal employment fluctuations. They contended that these individuals should still be considered employees as they had reasonable expectations to return to work and their temporary absence did not sever their relationship with their employer. Furthermore, excluding them could potentially undermine collective bargaining by reducing union membership during off-peak periods. The dissent also disagreed with the majority's reliance on common law definitions and practices in interpreting statutory terms, arguing instead for an approach more attuned to modern industrial realities and legislative purposes.