In the case of National Labor Relations Board v. Strong, DBA Strong Roofing & Insulating Co., 1968, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB had found that Strong Roofing and Insulating Co. was guilty of unfair labor practices under Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act by discriminating against an employee due to his union activities and coercively interrogating employees about their union sympathies. The company challenged these findings on appeal but failed to provide a transcript from its hearing before a trial examiner as required by law for such appeals. As a result, it was unable to substantiate its claims that there were errors in fact-finding or legal interpretation at this initial hearing stage which would justify overturning the NLRB's decision. Therefore, based on existing evidence presented during litigation process up until then, Supreme Court upheld NLRB's ruling.

In the dissenting opinion for National Labor Relations Board v. Strong, DBA Strong Roofing & Insulating Co., Justice Fortas argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of labor law and an overreach of judicial authority. He contended that the court had no right to intervene in matters concerning collective bargaining agreements unless there was clear evidence of unfair labor practices or violations of employee rights. In this case, he believed such evidence did not exist. Furthermore, he criticized the majority for disregarding established precedent which held that courts should defer to decisions made by administrative agencies like NLRB when those decisions are based on reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutory provisions. He asserted that it is not within the purview of judiciary to substitute its judgment for agency expertise in complex areas like labor relations.