In the case of Publishers' Association of New York City v. New York Mailers' Union Number Six, 1963, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the union. The dispute arose when a collective bargaining agreement between newspaper publishers and a mailers’ union included an arbitration clause that was invoked by the union to challenge certain employment practices. The publishers argued that this issue fell outside the scope of compulsory arbitration under their contract with the union because it concerned management prerogatives rather than "wages, hours and working conditions." However, both lower courts sided with the Union's interpretation which considered these issues as falling within those categories subject to mandatory negotiation and arbitration. The Supreme Court upheld these rulings stating that federal labor policy encourages industrial self-government through collective bargaining agreements including binding final settlement by arbitrators chosen by parties themselves for disputes over provisions contained in such contracts. It further noted that while judicial review is available if an award does not draw its essence from collective bargaining agreement or violates public policies explicitly expressed in laws or legal precedents; neither condition applied here thus affirming validity of arbitral decision against publishers.

In the dissenting opinion for Publishers' Association of New York City v. New York Mailers' Union Number Six, Justice Douglas argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established labor law principles and could potentially undermine collective bargaining processes. He contended that an employer should not be able to unilaterally change working conditions during negotiations without first reaching an impasse in good faith bargaining with the union. In this case, he believed there was no evidence of such an impasse before the employers implemented changes to work assignments and wage rates. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view on arbitration as a voluntary process; instead, he saw it as a necessary mechanism for resolving disputes in industries vital to public welfare like newspapers where strikes can have significant societal impacts.