In the case of United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, et al. v. National Labor Relations Board et al., 1963, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the United Steelworkers Union (USW). The dispute arose when USW picketed at four companies with which it had no labor disputes to pressure them into stopping business dealings with a fifth company that was resisting unionization efforts by USW. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) argued this constituted an unfair labor practice under section 8(b)(4)(A) and (B) of the Taft-Hartley Act because it involved secondary boycotts aimed at neutral employers. However, the Supreme Court held that such picketing did not violate these sections as long as it only urged consumers to stop buying products from those businesses rather than encouraging employees to strike or refuse work there. This decision clarified how far unions could go in their attempts to exert economic pressure on non-unionized firms without violating federal law.

In the dissenting opinion for United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO v. National Labor Relations Board, Justice Goldberg argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established labor law principles and undermined collective bargaining agreements. He contended that an employer should not be allowed to unilaterally change terms of employment during contract negotiations without first reaching an impasse in those negotiations. In his view, this requirement is essential to maintain balance between employers and unions during collective bargaining processes. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "good faith" negotiation under Section 8(d) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), arguing it did not require parties to make concessions or agree on any specific term but rather required them to meet and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours and other conditions of employment before making unilateral changes.