The U.S. Supreme Court case Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Co. v. Railway Labor Executives' Association in 1988 revolved around the dispute between a railroad company and its employees' union over the sale of assets without bargaining with the union first. The railway company argued that it was not required to negotiate because selling assets did not alter employment conditions, while the union claimed this violated their collective bargaining agreement under the Railway Labor Act (RLA). The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Company, stating that RLA does not require an employer to bargain over decisions affecting business structure or direction such as asset sales if they do not directly impact working conditions or terms of employment.

In the dissenting opinion for Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Co. v. Railway Labor Executives' Association, Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established precedent and an overreach of judicial authority. He contended that the Court had wrongly interpreted Section 2 Fourth of the Railway Labor Act (RLA) to allow unilateral changes in working conditions during negotiations, which he believed contradicted previous rulings and undermined collective bargaining rights under federal labor law. Furthermore, he criticized their interpretation of "major disputes" under RLA as overly broad and inconsistent with past decisions by both Supreme Court and lower courts. In his view, this case should have been considered a minor dispute subject to arbitration rather than litigation before court due to its nature concerning interpretation or application of existing agreements rather than formation or change thereof.