In the case of International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, et al. v. National Labor Relations Board (1960), the Supreme Court examined whether a union's insistence on an arbitration clause in collective bargaining agreements constituted an unfair labor practice under Section 8(b)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The court ruled that it did not constitute such a violation. The NLRA prohibits unions from refusing to bargain collectively with employers but does not specify what terms and conditions must be included in any resulting agreement. Therefore, insisting on certain provisions like arbitration clauses is part of the process rather than a refusal to negotiate or cooperate as defined by law. This ruling affirmed unions' rights to advocate for specific contract stipulations during negotiations without being accused of unfair practices.

The dissenting opinion in the case of International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, et al. v. National Labor Relations Board argued that the majority's decision was an overreach and misinterpretation of labor laws. The dissenters believed that the union did not violate any law by refusing to work overtime as a form of protest against their employer's actions. They contended that this action fell within workers' rights to engage in collective bargaining and other concerted activities for mutual aid or protection under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Furthermore, they disagreed with labeling such refusal as an "unfair labor practice" under Section 8(b)(3) because it does not constitute a refusal to bargain collectively or otherwise interfere with employees' rights guaranteed by NLRA. Thus, according to them, punishing unions for using economic pressure tactics like withholding overtime work would undermine workers’ power in negotiations and tilt favor towards employers.