Washington ( CNN ) -- The Supreme Court offered its tentative endorsement of so-called `` organizing agreements '' between unions and for-profit companies , with some justices saying on Wednesday the longstanding practice can encourage good labor relations . At issue is whether the particulars of such an agreement between Unite Here Local 355 and the Mardi Gras casino in Florida violates a federal law that prohibits companies from giving labor unions -- seeking to represent workers -- anything `` of value . '' Worker rights experts and business groups have called this one of the most significant labor relations cases in decades , and a high court ruling could have major implications for the future of the union movement in the United States . The gaming union entered into a `` neutrality '' agreement with the company , agreeing to work together to pass a ballot initiative legalizing slot machines in Dade and Broward Counties , a deal that ostensibly would benefit both sides . Unite Here independently spent more than $ 100,000 in an ad campaign supporting the measure . It also agreed not to strike or boycott . The casino in return allowed union members onto the premises , gave them employee contact information , and agreed to remain neutral in the organizing campaign . The high court debated in oral arguments whether this particular agreement violated the letter and spirit of the broader law , designed to prevent bribery , corruption and extortion in negotiations and organizing . A lower federal appeals court said `` if the $ 100,000 bought the peaceful recognition provisions , then that 's corrupt , and that is outside the exemptions that the law provides , '' said Justice Sonia Sotomayor . `` Tell me how I deal with that niggling problem I have about the $ 100,000 , because it does feel like a bribe to the employer . '' But Justice Elena Kagan said , `` I would have thought that the premise and the policies of the labor laws are to encourage a wide variety of employer/employee agreements , '' she said . `` The idea is to get these parties together to reach agreements on a wide variety of things that matter to them , regardless whether the labor law specifically refers to that . '' The lawsuit was brought by Martin Mulhall , an employee of Hollywood Greyhound Track Inc. , who opposed the union 's efforts to get him to join . Backed by the National Right to Work Foundation , his lawyers said `` backroom deals '' between company and union management undercut his right of association and free choice . Section 302 of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 makes it a crime for an employer to `` pay , lend or deliver ... any money or other thing of value '' to a union that wants to represent its workforce . `` That 's the danger that 302 exists to take care of , not that it 's necessarily wrongful per se for a union to have lists of ( employee ) information or the use of property , but what will it do in return ? '' attorney William Messenger told the high court in an intense hour of oral augments . `` And unions have compromised employee interests in exchange for this type of assistance . They certainly have extorted employers . '' Several justices suggested the casino and the union were engaged in a quid pro quo , but were not sure that amounted to an exchange of something of `` value . '' `` I mean , the union would n't promise that for nothing , '' said Justice Antonin Scalia . `` It would get something in exchange such as , in this case , the right to go on the employer 's property to recruit union members or some other thing of value from the employer , right ? '' But Richard McCracken , Unite Here 's lawyer , said this neutrality agreement and the $ 1000,000 ad campaign were like so many others , including the pending deal to build a massive oil pipeline through the middle section of the United States . `` The union , like so many construction unions that we know , is advocating in Congress for the passage of laws like the Keystone Pipeline Law . Why did they do that ? They do it because they want the jobs , '' he said . `` That is a combination of interests funneled through the First Amendment 's protection for mutual effort . '' Justice Anthony Kennedy seemed to agree , telling Messenger that his client 's views run `` contrary to years of settled practices and understandings . '' Unite Here represents about 265,000 active members in the United States and Canada , mainly in the hospitality , food service and manufacturing industries . The case is Unite Here Local 355 v. Mulhall ( 12-99 ) . A ruling is expected by the spring .
It is agreement between unions and the casino . Union campaigns for legal slot machines , casino gives it access to workers ' info . Court asks whether that violates law that says ' ca n't give firms things ` ` of value ''