In the case of Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board (1956), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The issue at hand was whether a company could refuse to bargain with a union over pension and insurance plans that were already established by an industry-wide bargaining agreement, which included multiple employers and unions. The court held that even though these benefits had been negotiated on an industry-wide basis, each individual employer still had a duty under the National Labor Relations Act to negotiate with their employees' representative about such matters if requested to do so. Therefore, Olin Mathieson's refusal constituted unfair labor practices as it violated its obligation to bargain collectively with its workers' representatives.

In the dissenting opinion for Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a ruling by the NLRB, which found that Olin had engaged in unfair labor practices, was incorrect. The dissenters believed that there were serious procedural errors made during the initial hearing before an examiner of the NLRB and these errors should have been corrected on review by both the board and court. They contended that due process rights were violated because certain evidence presented at trial was not properly considered or weighed against other evidence. Furthermore, they disagreed with how much weight was given to hearsay testimony over direct witness accounts in determining whether Olin had interfered with its employees' right to engage in union activities under Section 8(a)(1) of NLRA (National Labor Relations Act). In their view, this case represented a departure from established principles governing administrative hearings and judicial reviews thereof.