Case Name: MASTER PRINTERS ASSOCIATION, A DIVISION OF PRINTING INDUSTRY OF ILLINOIS, Defendant-Appellant, v. Raymond J. DONOVAN, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Plaintiff-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1983-01-31
Citations: 699 F.2d 370
Docket Number: No. 82-1459
Parties: MASTER PRINTERS ASSOCIATION, A DIVISION OF PRINTING INDUSTRY OF ILLINOIS, Defendant-Appellant, v. Raymond J. DONOVAN, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Plaintiff-Appellee.
Judges: Before PELL and BAUER, Circuit Judges, and TIMBERS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 699
Pages: 370–375

Head Matter:
MASTER PRINTERS ASSOCIATION, A DIVISION OF PRINTING INDUSTRY OF ILLINOIS, Defendant-Appellant, v. Raymond J. DONOVAN, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Plaintiff-Appellee.
No. 82-1459.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Argued Nov. 30, 1982.
Decided Jan. 31, 1983.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied May 12, 1983.
Maurice Baskin, Francis Thomas Coleman, Jr., Venable, Baetjer, Howard & Civiletti, Washington, D.C., for defendant-appellant.
Elaine Kaplan, Div. of Sp. Appellate and Supreme Court Litigation, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before PELL and BAUER, Circuit Judges, and TIMBERS, Senior Circuit Judge.
The Honorable William H. Timbers, Senior Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, is sitting by designation.

Opinion:
BAUER, Circuit Judge.
The Secretary of Labor initiated this action against Master Printers Association (MPA), alleging that MPA violated section 203 of the Labor Management and Disclosure Act, 29 U.S.C. § 433, by failing to file complete reports of its labor relations activity. MPA defended on the grounds that the Secretary's reading of section 203's disclosure requirements was overly broad and contrary to the legislative history, the statutory scheme and the plain language of the statute. It also contended that by interpreting section 203 to require complete disclosure of persuader and non-persuader labor relations activity whenever a labor consultant engaged in any persuader activity violated the constitutional rights of MPA and its members to freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, and due process.
The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. The district court granted the Secretary's motion for summary judgment and denied MPA's motion for summary judgment, holding that section 203 required MPA to file the complete reports of all its labor relations activity for any year in which it engaged in some persuader activity. In rendering its memorandum opinion the district court thoroughly and carefully analyzed all the issues raised in this appeal. Accordingly, we affirm and adopt the excellent opinion of the district court, which is reported at 532 F.Supp. 1140.