In the case of Spiller v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company (1919), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company. The plaintiff, Spiller, was a former employee who had been injured on duty and sought compensation for his injuries under federal law. However, he had signed an agreement with his employer to settle all claims through arbitration before seeking legal recourse. When he attempted to sue without first going through arbitration as agreed upon in their contract, the court held that this violated their agreement and dismissed his claim. The decision established that employees must adhere to contractual agreements made with employers regarding dispute resolution procedures before resorting to litigation. This ruling upheld principles of contract law by enforcing private agreements between parties and emphasized respect for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms like arbitration.

In the dissenting opinion for Spiller v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of the railway company undermined workers' rights and ignored existing labor laws. The dissenters believed that employees should have been allowed to strike without facing legal repercussions from their employer. They contended that by siding with the railway company, which had sought an injunction against striking workers, the Supreme Court was effectively denying these individuals their right to protest unfair working conditions and wages. Furthermore, they asserted that this ruling could set a dangerous precedent by discouraging other groups of workers from exercising their right to strike out of fear of potential lawsuits or other forms of retaliation from employers.