former general counsel has noted the unusually broad nature of even the surviving part of this order, Irving, "Remedies and Compliance: Putting More Teeth Into the Act," in Southwestern Legal Foundation: 23d Annual Institute on Labor Law

at 349, 385 (1977).

225/ The usual cease-and-desist order does include the employer and "its officers, agents, successors and assigns," but this does not succeed in building a record against particular consultants who are chronic violators. Besides the weakness of using a generic term rather than specifically naming a party, the unnamed party is left free to litigate later whether it was in fact an "agent" in the earlier proceeding.

Another advantage in theory to naming consultants as parties is that the Board can later use its contempt powers to punish consultants who disobey the earlier Order. The Board has not used this authority aggressively, however, see Bartosic & Lanoff, "Escalating the Struggle Against TaftHartley Contemnors," 39 U.Chi.L. Rev. 255 (1972).

226/ Consolidated Edison Co. v. N.L.R.B., 305 U.S. 197 (1938). 227/ 194 N.L.R.B. 1234, 79 L.R.R.M. 1175 (1972). See also Tiidee Products, Inc. 196 N.L.R.B. 158, 79 L.R.R.M. 1692 (1972),

enf'd as m'fied sub nom International Union of Electrical

Workers v. N.L.R.B., 502 F.2d 349 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 921 (1974).

228/ 194 N.L.R.B. at 1236-37.

229

International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine

Workers, AFL-CIO v. N.L.R.B. (Tiidee Products), 426 F.2d
1243, 1248 (D.C. Cir. 1970), enf'g in part and remand-

.

ing in part 174 N.L.R.B. 705, 70 L.R.R.M. 1346 (1969),
cert. denied, 400 U.S. 950 (1970). The consultant,
Harvey Rector, appeared also in another case in which
the Board implied that he was responsible for preparing
a false memorandum submitted to the Board in support
of an employer's defense of a §8 (a)(3) charge, Stemun
Manufacturing Co., Inc., 174 N.L.R.B. 288, 70 L.R.R.M.
1198 (1969). The Sixth Circuit, however, determined
that this conclusion was not based on sufficient evi-
dence, but enforced the Board's findings that the Company
had committed other unfair labor practices, supra note 189.

230/ A complete recitation would be repetitive of the cases discussed at notes 180-205 and accompanying text supra. Representative cases include Easy-Heat Wirekraft, Div. of Bristol Products, Inc., 238 N.L.R.B. No. 224, 99 L.R.R.M. 1681 (1978) (attorney offered employer help to twenty-year old employee committee shortly after union lost representation election; violation of $8 (a) (2)); Roadway Express, Inc., 170 N.L.R.B. 1446, 68 L.R.R.M. 1075 (1968) (attorney told union after representation

election that unit was wrong and certification was therefore

unlawful despite pre-election decision on this issue
by Regional Director, and did not respond to NLRB
Supplemental Notice to Show Cause; violation of

$8 (a) (5)); N.L.R.B. v.

Neuhoff Bros. Packers, Inc.,

1967), enf'g 151 N.L.R.B. 916,

375 F.2d 372 (5th Cir.

58 L.R.R.M. 1524 (1965) (attorney-labor consultant

coercively interrogated employees about union activities

during preparation for unfair labor practice proceeding; violation of $8 (a) (1)).

231/ See notes 209-16 and accompanying text supra.

232/ LMRA $101, 29 U.S.C. $156 (1976).

233

Goldsmith v. U.S. Board of Tax Appeals, 270 U.S. 117
(1926); Herman v. Dulles, 205 F.2d 715 (D.C. Cir. 1953);
Camp v. Herzog, 104 F.Supp. 134 (D.D.C. 1952).

Unlike some other agencies, the Board is not specifically
empowered or directed by statute to do so, cf., e.g.,
31 U.S.C. $52(f) (1976) (practitioners before General
Accounting Office); 38 U.S.c. $S3401-3405 (1976)
(representatives of claimants before the Veterans
Administration); 42 U.S.C. $406 (1976) (representatives
of OASDI claimants before the Department of Health,
Education and Welfare); 43 U.S.C. $1464 (1976)
(representatives of claimants before the Department

of the Interior).

234/ NLRB Rules and Regulations $102.66 (d) (1) & (2). This
section governs hearings in representation cases.

Identical provisions apply to unfair labor practice and
other proceedings, id. at $$102.44, 102.72 (b), 102.86,
102.90. The Board also prohibits former employees from
appearing in any case which was pending during their Board
tenure, id. at $$102.119, 102.120, and regulates ex parte
communications among parties, their representatives, and
Board personnel, id. at $$102.126-.134.

235/ Camp v. Herzog, 104 F. Supp. 134 (D.D.C. 1952).

236

E.q., Ovalwood Dish Corporation, 118 N.L.R.B. 947, 40 L.R.R.M. 1285 (1957); Herbert J. Nichol, 111 N.L.R.B. 447, 35 L.R.R.M. 1489 (1955); Robert S. Cahoon, 106 N.L.R.B. 831, 32 L.R.R.M. 1568 (1953).

237/ Roy T. Rhodes and John H. Doesburg, 152 N.L.R.B. 912, 59 L.R.R.M. 1209 (1965).

238/ Ovalwood Dish Corporation, 119 N.L.R.B. 1666, 41 L.R.R.M.

1375 (1958).

239/ See N.L.R.B. v. Selwyn Shoe Manufacturing Corp., 428 F.2d 217, 225 (8th Cir. 1970), indicating that NLRB General Counsel's noncompliance with Board order to produce materials may implicate $102.44.

240/ See, e.g., Koval Press, Inc., 241 No. 199, 101 L.R.R.M. 1086 (1979); J.P. Stevens & Co., Inc., 239 N.L.R.B. No. 95, 100 L.R.R.M. 1052 (1978), review denied, 592 F.2d 1237 (4th Cir.

1979); John Singer, Inc., 197 N.L.R.B. 88, 80 L.R.R.M. 1340 (1972).

241/ W. C. McQuaide, Inc., 220 N.L.R.B. 593, 90 L.R.R.M.
1345 (1975). See also Southern Florida Hotel & Motel
Association, 245 N.L.R.B. No. 49, 102 L.R.R.M. 1578
(1979) (employer counsel's unprofessional and unseemly
remarks, including comments claiming senility of Ad-
ministrative Law Judge, are totally inappropriate and
uncalled for, but no further disciplinary action other
than strong disapproval is necessary).

242/ 17 C.F.R. $201.2 (e) (1) (1979). Rule 2(e) was promulgated under general SEC authority to "make such rules and regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to implement the provisions of this chapter for which they are responsible or for the execution of the functions vested in them by this chapter", Securities Exchange Act $23 (a) (1), 15 U.S.C. $78w (a) (1) (1976). This authority is similar to that granted to the NLRB by the LMRA, 29 U.S.C. $156 (1976). 243/ Such consultants as Gladys Selvin and Rayford T. Blankenship regularly appear before the Board despite repeated findings of their active participation in employer violations. The NLRB recently denied a United Auto Workers motion to disbar Fred Long of West Coast Industrial Relations Associates, Inc., for his anti-union activities, Catalina Yachts, 250 N.L.R.B. No. 48 (1980). The UAW is currently seeking reconsideration of this ruling.

244/ See Touche Ross & Co., v. Securities and Exchange Commission CCH Fed. Sec. L. Rep. 196,854 (2d Cir. 1979).

245/ See Backer v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 275 F.2d 141 (5th Cir. 1960).