29 C.F.R. § 1401.2

Production of records or testimony by FMCS employees

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Public policy and the successful effectuation of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service's mission require that commissioners and employees maintain a reputation for impartiality and integrity. Labor and management or other interested parties participating in mediation efforts must have the assurance and confidence that information disclosed to commissioners and other employees of the Service will not subsequently be divulged, voluntarily or because of compulsion, unless authorized by the Director of the Service.

(b) No officer, employee, or other person officially connected in any capacity with the Service, currently or formerly shall, in response to a subpoena, subpoena duces tecum, or other judicial or administrative order, produce any material contained in the files of the Service, disclose any information acquired as part of the performance of his official duties or because of his official status, or testify on behalf of any party to any matter pending in any judicial, arbitral or administrative proceeding, without the prior approval of the Director.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1980–1980 · leading case: Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Joseph MacAluso Inc., D/B/A Lemon Tree, 618 F.2d 51 (9th Cir. 1980).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Joseph MacAluso Inc., D/B/A Lemon Tree, 618 F.2d 51 (9th Cir. 1980). · cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. § 1401.2 (a), (b) (1979). This need for the appearance of impartiality, and the potential for loss of that appearance through any degree of mediator testimony, was well expressed by the NLRB in the decision relied upon by the ALJ when revoking Hammond’s subpoena:…”

Bliznik v. Int'l Harvester Co., 87 F.R.D. 490 (N.D. Ill. 1980). “29 C.F.R. § 1401.2 (a), (b) (1979). The court specifically noted that they did not reach the question whether different results would occur if the FMCS Director granted authority for the mediator to testify- In this court’s opinion these regulations should have been dispositive…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.