This study examines the reporting compliance, as defined by section 203(b) of the Labor -Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), 1959, of labor relations consultants who engage in persuader activity. Organized labor suggests that the loss in union strength results, in large part, from management's use of labor relations consultants and their failure to file required reports with the U.S. Department of Labor. Two samples of labor relations consultants known to have engaged in persuader activity and two samples of those who could be engaged in persuader activity are identified. A research questionnaire is mailed to 779 of the total of 887 labor relations consultants for whom an address could be developed. Discriminant analysis using 16 variables correctly classifies 93.8 percent of the responding labor relations consultants grouped according to whether they had filed required reports. Other discriminant analyses using selected variables are also conducted. Three associated questions are answered. First, there are an estimated 850 labor relations consultants who have engaged in persuader activity or who can be presumed to have engaged in persuader activity. Of this number, almost 500 are estimated to have engaged in persuader activity and only 30 percent of these are estimated to have filed required reports. Second, the labor relations consultants surveyed is, on average, male, an attorney, is titled "president" and is located in California, Michigan or Illinois. Third, solely in the context of National Labor Relations Board election processes, the effect on the loss of the union strength caused by (1) labor relations consultants and (2) the failure of the consultants who engaged in persuader activity to file a required report cannot be determined. However, because the estimated decrease in the number of union members over the years 1960 - 1989 exceeds the number of eligible voters in N.L.R.B. elections lost by unions over the same period, this effect is assessed as minimal