The U.S. Supreme Court case Independent Petroleum Workers of America, Inc. v. American Oil Co., 1964, revolved around a labor dispute between the Independent Petroleum Workers of America (IPWA) and the American Oil Company (Amoco). The IPWA sought to compel Amoco to arbitrate grievances under an existing collective bargaining agreement following a strike by union members at one of Amoco's refineries in Indiana Harbor, Indiana. However, Amoco refused on grounds that the strike violated a no-strike clause in their contract with IPWA which led them to terminate said contract before its expiration date due to this breach. The District Court ruled in favor of IPWA but was reversed by the Seventh Circuit Court which sided with Amoco stating that there was indeed a violation from IPWA’s side leading to termination rights for Amoco as per their agreement terms. In turn, upon reaching the Supreme Court level it held that while federal law does not require specific performance or enforcement of arbitration agreements within labor contracts; it also doesn't permit unilateral termination based on alleged breaches without resorting first through agreed-upon grievance procedures including arbitration if necessary unless clearly stated otherwise within such agreements themselves - thus reversing again back towards initial ruling favoring IPWA.

In the dissenting opinion for Independent Petroleum Workers of America, Inc. v. American Oil Co., Justice Goldberg argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). He believed that an employer should not be allowed to unilaterally change working conditions during negotiations without first reaching an impasse in bargaining. In this case, he felt that American Oil had prematurely implemented changes before such a deadlock occurred and thus violated its duty to bargain in good faith as required by NLRA. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view on what constitutes a "substantial impact" on employment terms and conditions - arguing instead for a broader interpretation which would include any unilateral changes made by employers during ongoing negotiations.