246/ See Great Lakes Screw Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 409 F.2d 375 (7th Cir. 1969), denying enf't in relevant part to 164 N.L.R.B. 149, 65 L.R.R.M. 1236 (1967).

247/ I Hearings at 101-03, 119-20 (testimony of Nancy Mills);

Hearings of February 26 (statement of Robert Muehlenkamp). 248/ J. I. Case Co. v. N.L.R.B., 253 F.2d 149 (7th Cir. 1958). LMRDA $205, 29 U.S.C. $435 (1976).

249

250/ 5 U.S.c. $552 (1976).

251/ Cf., e.g., N.L.R.B. v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214 (1978); Capitol Times Co. v. N.L.R.B., 103 L.R.R.M. 2656 (E.D.Wisc. 1980); Anderson Greenwood & Co. v. N.L.R.B., 604 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1979); with Nemacolin Mines Corp. v. N.L.R.B. 467 F.Supp. 521 (W.D.Pa. 1979). See also NOTE, "The Impact of the FOLA on NLRB Discovery Procedures," 10 U.Mich.J.L.R.

476 (1977).

252/ N.L.R.B. v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432, 437-38 (1967). 253/ See, e.g., International Harvester Co., 241 N.L.R.B.

No. 94, 100 L.R.R.M. 1588 (1979) (managerial and super-
visory employees); Middleboro Fire Apparatus, Inc.,
234 N.L.R.B. 888, 97 L.R.R.M. 1384 (1978) (successor
employer's officers, directors, and stockholders).

254/ Associated General Contractors of California, 242

N.L.R.B. No. 124, 101 L.R.R.M. 1260 (1979). And see

I Hearings at 428-33, 436-41 (statement of Robert A. Georgine).

255/ 101 L.R.R.M. at 1262-63.

256/ In re Semel, 411 F.2d 195, 197 (3d Cir. 1969); Wirtz v.

257/

Fowler, 372 F.2d 315, 332-33 (5th Cir. 1966).

Cooperation with other agencies and departments.

In order to avoid unnecessary expense and duplication of functions among Government agencies, the Secretary may make such arrangements or agreements for cooperation or mutual assistance in the performance of his functions under this chapter and the functions of any such agency as he may find to be practicable and consistent with law. The Secretary may utilize the facilities or services of any department, agency, or establishment of the United States or of any State or political subdivision of a State, including the services of any of its employees, with the lawful consent of such department, agency, or establishment; and each department, agency, or establishment of the United States is authorized and directed to cooperate with the Secretary and, to the extent permitted by law, to provide such information and facilities as he may request for his assistance in the performance of his functions under this chapter. The Attorney General or his representative shall receive from the Secretary for appropriate action such evidence developed in the performance of his functions under this chapter as may be found to

warrant consideration for criminal prosecution under the provisions of this chapter or other Federal law. LMRDA $607, 29 U.S.C. $527 (1976).

The Department of Labor might also arrange with the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service to receive notification of disputes in which FMCS is involved, since many of

them may not enter the purview of the NLRB but might in-
volve consultants.

258/ LMRDA $203 (g), 29 U.S.C. S433 (g) (1976). The Department of
Labor provides some guidance as to the expenditures and
activities it has in mind:

3. You spend money to interfere with, restrain,

or coerce employees in their rights to organize and bargain collectively.

have to report if -

a.

For example, you

You make expenditures for the printing

and dissemination of pamphlets, advertise

ments, or other printed matter, that threatened

to move or close your plant should the

employees organize.

threaten other employees against organizing
or joining a union, or otherwise interfere
with, restrain or coerce other employees
in the right to organize and bargain
collectively through representatives of
their own choosing.

259/ Technical Assistance Aid No. 6 at 7. Wirtz v. National

Welders Supply Co., Inc., 254 F.Supp. 62, 64-66 (W.D.N.C.

1966).

260/ Wirtz v. Ken Lee, Inc., 369 F.2d 393 (5th Cir. 1966). 261/ It should also be noted that the annual report of $203 (a) (3) activity risks no liability under the LMRA if no charge has yet been filed and the activity took place over six months before the reporting date, LMRA $10 (b), 29 U.S.c. $160 (b) (1976).

262

See note 230 and accompanying text supra. And see

I Hearings at 33-35, 53-54 (testimony of Alan Kistler: man-
agement attorney activities); id. at 45-50 ("Deunionizing,'
seminar by attorney Alfred T. DeMaria, Clifton, Budd, Burke
& DeMaria, New York, N.Y.); id. at 190-94 (testimony of
Stephen I. Schlossberg: activities of attorney John Tate,
Nelson, Harding, Yeutter, Leonard & Tate, Lincoln, Nebraska);
id. at 310-13 (testimony of Robert Fox and J.C. Tunner:
management attorney activities and bar inaction); id. at
419-21, 434-35 (testimony of Robert Georgine: union-busting
law firms); II Hearings at 3-21, 24-27 (testimony of R.V.
Durham and John Jones: activities of Hogg, Allen, Ryce &

Norton, Coral Gables, Florida); id. at 201-02 ("Employee
Relations for the Non-Union Employee," management seminar by
attorney Howard Bernstein, Pope, Ballard, Shepard & Fowle,
Chicago, Ill.); id. at 204-09 ("Public Employee Unionism,"
management seminar by A. Samuel Cook, Venable, Baetjer &
Howard, Baltimore, Md.); Craver, supra note 173 ; Hearings
of February 27 (statements of Vicki Saporta and Christopher
Scott: Hogg, Allen, Ryce & Norton and PPG Industries),
"RUB Sheet," Nos. 2, 4, 5, and 11 (March, May, June, and
December, 1979), passim.

263/

The American Bar Association Commission on Evaluation of Professional Standards is currently engaged in writing new "Rules of Professional Conduct." Analysis of the most recent of many drafts, "Tentative Draft No. 6," is premature, however, given the frequency of revisions thus far.

264/ Craver,

265/

supra note 162.

If the prospect of criminal sanctions and the
enforcement authority of the Department of Labor
have been unable to deter the pervasive unreported
persuader and information-retrieval activity by
employers' lawyers disclosed by the instant survey,
it is certainly fatuous to suggest that bar discipli-
nary committees will effectively regulate this area.
Id. at 627-28.

To be sure, the bar's failure to police labor law practitioners is symptomatic of more pervasive weaknesses in