In the case of National Labor Relations Board v. Servette, Inc., 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The dispute arose when Servette, a wholesale distributor of newspapers and magazines to retail outlets in Los Angeles County, refused to bargain with a union that had been certified by NLRB as representing its truck driver employees. The company argued it was not engaged in interstate commerce and thus outside NLRB's jurisdiction under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). However, both lower courts and finally the Supreme Court disagreed with this argument. They found that since Servette received substantial amounts of out-of-state publications for distribution within California - an activity which could be affected by labor disputes - it did fall within NLRA’s purview as affecting interstate commerce. Therefore, they were required to negotiate with their employee's chosen representative.

In the dissenting opinion for the National Labor Relations Board v. Servette, Inc., case, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a cease and desist order against Servette, Inc. was incorrect due to an overextension of jurisdiction by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB had issued this order because they believed that Servette had engaged in unfair labor practices by refusing to bargain with a union representative. However, according to the dissenting justices, there were no substantial evidence supporting these claims made by NLRB as per Section 8(a)(5) of NLRA which states that employers are required only to negotiate with representatives chosen by their employees without any interference or influence from outside parties such as unions. They also pointed out that under Section 9(c), it is not within NLRB’s power or authority to certify a bargaining representative unless requested so by either employer or employee group involved in dispute; hence making its intervention into this matter unjustified and unlawful.