In the 1944 case of Order of Railway Conductors of America et al. v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co. et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, upholding their right to change work rules without consulting labor unions first under certain circumstances. The dispute arose when a group representing railway conductors and brakemen sued after the company unilaterally changed its policy on how it assigned overtime work, which they claimed was a violation of their collective bargaining agreement and federal law governing railroad labor relations (the Railway Labor Act). However, the court found that since this particular issue wasn't explicitly covered by any existing agreement between parties or by specific provisions in federal law, management had discretion to make changes as long as they didn't violate any explicit contractual or statutory obligations.

In the dissenting opinion for the case Order of Railway Conductors of America et al. v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co. et al., Justice Robert H. Jackson argued that the majority's decision to uphold an injunction against a railway union strike was not in line with federal labor laws, which he believed were designed to protect workers' rights to collective bargaining and strikes as means of dispute resolution. He contended that by allowing courts to intervene in labor disputes through issuing such injunctions, they were effectively undermining these federally protected rights and disrupting delicate balance between employers and employees established by Congress through legislation like Norris-LaGuardia Act or Wagner Act (National Labor Relations Act). Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential misuse of judicial power in similar future cases if this precedent is set.