The Court also held that an employer did not violate the Act if it chose to deal with the employees on an individual basis.

In 1934, the company won a government contract, and agreed that the "new men" would not only be paid a lower wage but also would be the first discharged once work slacked off.

The case was one of the first clear-cut defeats for the NLRB before the Supreme Court, after an unprecedented string of 15 successes.

[5][6] The Sands Court also upheld the right of an employer to violate the NLRA so long as the union had already acted illegally.

[6] The Court rejected the union's good faith effort to interpret its contract, which led to the strike.

[7][8] The "employer's overriding right to unimpeded access to labor was held to justify its unilateral action to resolve an impasse in its favor.

Although the justices had previously interpreted the Act solely through the lens of the Commerce Clause (showing strong deference to the Board), now the Court evinced a willingness to apply evidentiary standards to the Board's actions and to impose a less radical interpretation on the law.