International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 31, 1962

139 N.L.R.B. 688 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

688 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
EXTRA WAITRESSES
Name 1st wk i I 2d wk 3d wk 4th wk 5th wk Total 2
Joan Price **--------------------------- $24 00 ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Erna Sheppard '*_________________________ 43 00 $55 50 $50 00 _ $105 50
Margot Swiatowsky---------------------- ---------- 31 00 ---------- --- ------ --------- 31 00
Ann Alexandrio ---------- ---------- 22 00 ---------- ---------- 22 00
Peggy Barry------------------------------ ---------- 50 00 72 00 ---------- ---------- 122 00
Anna Belian------------------------------ ---------- ---------- ---------- $65 00 ---------- 65 00
Diva Bruck*'_____________________________ 28 00 53 00 __________ 22 00 _
Irene Duda**_____________________________ 102 00 50 141 00 102 50 __________ 93 50
Mary Egan**_____________________________ 43 00 ________ 80 00 26 00 __________ 106 00
Rose Gallagher* *_________________________ 75 00 68 50 112 00 94 00 __________ 274 50
Olga Genzone *'___________________________ 43 00 31 49 00 52 00 $49 00 181 00
Theresa Gibbons *'_______________________ 85.00 68 50 50 00 76 00 25 00 219 50
Kay Gierish *'---------------------------- 65 00 56 00 __________ __________ __________ 56 00
Betty McAllister**_______________________ 43 00 71 50 72 00 102 00 __________ 245 50
Frances Milsap **_________________________ 152 00 50 00 140 00 137 00 __________ 327 00
Anna Spagnaletto **_______________________ 43 00 69 00 72 00 52 00 __________ 193 00
Eileen Smith ----------------------------- ---------- ---------- 24 00 ---------- ---------- 24 00
Billie Wolt**------------------------------ 65 00 ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------
Helen Gasper"--------------------------- 12 00 ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Kathleen Egan--------------------------- ---------- ---------- 26 00
Total_______________________________ 1,635 00 1 , 845 75 2, 615 50 2, 174 25 326 00 6,961 50
' Denotes alleged discrimmatee
" Denotes worked during strike
1 Strike period
2 Last 4 weeks only.
7 May include prestrike earnings (see Tr 499-500)
4 Ibid.
May include prestrike earnings (see Tr. 478-479)
E Ibid.
International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and As-
bestos Workers, AFL-CIO; and International Association of
Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, Local 2,
AFL-CIO and Speed-Line Manufacturing Company, Inc.
International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and As-
bestos Workers, AFL-CIO; and International Association of
Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, Local 2,
AFL-CIO and Fibrous Glass Products, Inc. Cases Nos. 6-CC-
261-11 6-CC-261-2, and 6-CC-270. October 31, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 25, 1962, Trial Examiner Arthur E. Reyman issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Intermedi-
ate Report. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions to the In-
termediate Report and supporting briefs.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
139 NLRB No. 53.
INT'L ASSN. OF HEAT AND FROST INSULATORS, ETC. 689
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner only insofar as they are consistent
with our Decision and Order.
1. The Trial Examiner found that Speed-Line Manufacturing Com-
pany, Inc., was engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act,
even though its dollar volume of interstate shipments during the
year preceding the issuance of the complaint in this case did not
meet the Board's discretionary standard for the assertion of jurisdic-
tion. In cases such as this the Board will assert jurisdiction to effectu-
ate the policy of the Act where there has been a pattern of unfair labor
practices and there is a basis for asserting jurisdiction over some of
the parties involved? Here, the other Employers involved do meet
our jurisdictional standards and a pattern of unlawful conduct is
clearly alleged. Accordingly, we find that it will effectuate the policies
of the Act to assert jurisdiction over Speed-Line in this case.
2. In agreement with the Trial Examiner, we find that an object
of Respondents' conduct was to force Industrial to cease doing busi-
ness with Fibrous because Fibrous was not in a contractual relation-
ship with one of the locals of Respondent International. In so finding,
we rely solely on the following evidence.
At a meeting of premolded insulating material manufacturers with
International President Sickles in September 1961, Sickles told Kra-
kauer, president of Fibrous, that only those fittings bearing the union
label would be installed. March, president of Insul-Coustic Corpora-
tion, corroborated this. During his testimony Sickles stated, in ex-
plaining an article in the August 1961 issue of The Asbestos Worker,
an official union publication, that it was International policy not to
install premolded fittings. Our conclusion is also supported by a re-
port in the November 1961 issue of the same magazine which quoted
the minutes of a meeting of the general executive board of the Inter-
national pointing out that there had been "several instances where
employers, signatory to the Local Union Joint Trades Agreement,
have been found to sublet portions of the insulation work included in
their contract to others with the result that the labor in connection,
therewith was not performed by employees represented by our Local
Unions, which, of course, constituted a violation of the agreement
through misassignment of the work and all Local Unions are in-
'We hereby correct the following inadvertent errors of the Trial Examiner which do
not affect our Decision herein : ( 1) The work on the job started on January 17, not
February 17 ; (2) Liddle called Rust after Seller expressed some doubt as to whether
premolded fittings could be installed , not as a result of an absolute refusal by him to
install them ; and (3 ) Industrial , not Fibrous , canceled the orders and thereafter did not
purchase the premolded products
2 Journeymen Barbers , Hain dressers , Cosmetologists and Proprietors International Union
of America, AFL-CIO ( Chicago and Illinois Hairdressers Association), 120 NLRB 936.
690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
structed to take necessary and appropriate action to deal with any
repetition of this practice." I
In view of the above, we find that the same policy was in existence
at all times, and we are convinced that the Respondents herein were
seeking to enforce that policy rather than solely to protect contrac-
tually designated work performed at the jobsite.4
3. We find that the conduct of Respondent Local establishes viola-
tions of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act.
When Seiler, an employee of Industrial and a member of Respond-
ent Local, called Rust, the business agent of Respondent Local, to ask
him whether he could apply the premolded fittings, Rust told him,
"You have your book, you know the law." Liddle, secretary-treasurer
of Industrial, testified I that at another time Seiler told him that he
had been instructed not to install premolded fittings. Accordingly,
we conclude that the Respondent Local, by these orders, induced and
encouraged Seiler not to install the fittings for the unlawful objective
found above, and thereby violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) (B) of the Acts
At a meeting on January 23, 1962, arranged by Liddle to discuss
the situation at the jobsite, and attended by Liddle, Rust, Kane, sec-
retary of the Local, and other interested parties, Rust and Kane made
it clear that the Respondent Local's members would not install the
premolded fittings. Rust told Liddle at the meeting that he would
advise his men not to install premolded fittings, and, in fact, accord-
ing to Liddle,' Rust had made the salve statement to Liddle earlier.
In the circumstances of this case, the conduct herein described con-
stituted clear threats of work stoppages, and hence violated Section
8(b) (4) (ii) (13).-
4. We find that Respondent International also violated the relevant
provisions of the law.'
s In two recent decisions , the Board has found similar instances of Respondent Inter-
national's boycotting of premolded fittings which were not manufactured by employees
who are members of the Inteinational , International Association of Heat and Frost Insu-
iatois and Asbestos Workers (Speed-Line Manufacturing Co, Inc.), 137 NLRB 1410;
and International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers ( Insul-
Cousttc Corporation), 139 NLRB 659
4 See Insul - Coustic Corporation , supra, footnote 3
5 The Trial Examiner did not mention this testimony in his Intermediate Report. How-
ever , in making his finding , he apparently credited Liddle's testimony in all respects.
Accordingly, we accept this evidence which is consistent with the other findings of the
facts in this case.
a Insul-CoustiC Corporation , supra.
7 See footnote 5, supra
8 Building and Construction Trades Council of Tampa and Vicinity , AFL-CIO, et at.
( Tampa Sand and Material Co ), 132 NLRB 1564.
D Member Brown dissents fiom the finding that the International violated Section
8(b) (4) (i ) ( B) In his view , there is no evidence that the International directed or
instructed the Local to tell Seiler not to install premolded fittings or that it otherwise
participated in this conduct This finding, in Member Brown's opinion, rests on specula-
tion and unsuppoited inference , and lie would accordingly dismiss this portion of the
complaint.
INT'L ASSN. OF HEAT AND FROST INSULATORS, ETC. 691
The messages in the International's publications and Sickles' tes-
timony show its policy was to refuse to install premolded fittings
not produced by members of the Union and that it instructed locals
to carry out this policy. Further, there is specific evidence that the
International joined in and guided the actions of Respondent Local.
Thus, at the January 23 meeting, Rust declined to call the Interna-
tional about the situation there because he had already discussed the
matter with President Sickles. This fact, together with the state-
ments in the International's magazine, shows that the Local was en-
forcing a planned campaign by the International to prevent the
application of premolded fittings not manufactured by members of
the Union." Accordingly, this evidence establishes violations of
Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B).11
5. We disagree, however, with the Trial Examiner's finding that
the Respondents violated the law with respect to Speed-Line Com-
pany.'2 Contrary to the statement in the Intermediate Report, In-
dustrial purchased insulating material from Speed-Line only as sam-
ples for the purpose of suggesting their use on the Bell Telephone job
and later possibly on other jobs. In these circumstances, we find
that there has been no violation of the Act insofar as Speed-Line
Manufacturing Company is concerned. In our opinion, any business
done by Speed-Line was de minimis, and we cannot find that In-
dustrial was using, handling, or otherwise dealing in products of
Speed-Line, or that it ceased doing business with Speed-Line, as any
such transactions were merely possibilities and highly speculative.
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the charges relating to Speed-Line
Manufacturing Company.
6. Since this is the third case involving Respondent International
and its Locals (supra, footnote 3), we find that a pattern of illegal
conduct exists which justifies a broad order.
ORDER
We hereby adopt the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner
as it pertains to Fibrous, and delete the words "or Speed-Line" from
paragraphs 1(a) and (b) of the Recommended Order and the words
"Speed-Line Manufacturing Company, Inc., or" from both para-
graphs of the Appendix.l3
10 Local Union No 929, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-
CIO, et at (The Mengel Company, et al ), 120 NLRB 1756, 1766.
11 Insul-Coustic Corpo+ ation, supra
12 Members Rodgers and Leedom find it unnecessary to pass on this aspect of the case,
as it cannot affect the scope of the Order
"The Appendix attached to the Intermediate Report is amended by deleting the words
`60 days from the date hereof" in the next to the last sentence of said notice and insert-
inc in its place, the words "60 consecutive days from the date of posting.
672010-63-vol 139-45
692 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is hereby ordered that the complaint be dismissed so far as it
alleges violations other than those found herein.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et seq., herein called the Act.
Speed-Line Manufacturing Company, Inc., hereinafter sometimes called Speed-
Line, on February 12, 1962, filed charges against International Association of Heat
and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, AFL-CIO, hereinafter sometimes called
the International, and International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and
Asbestos Workers, Local 2, AFL-CIO, hereinafter sometimes called Local 2, each a
Respondent herein, in which it was asserted that the Respondents have engaged in
and are engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b) (4) (B) of the Act (Cases Nos. 6-CC-261-1 and 6-CC-261-2). Fibrous Glass
Products Inc , hereinafter sometimes called Fibrous, on February 26, 1962, filed
a charge against the above-named Respondents, asserting violations of the same
provisions of the Act (Case No. 6-CC-270). On March 22, 1962, the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, on behalf of the Board, by the
Regional Director for the Sixth Region , issued a consolidated complaint against the
above-named Respondents, alleging that they, and each of them, did engage in and are
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and
(n) (B) of the Act, as amended, 61 Stat 136, 73 Stat. 519. Each Respondent filed
timely answer to the consolidated complaint.
Pursuant to notice and upon the issues framed by the consolidated complaint and
the answers thereto, the matter came on for hearing before Trial Examiner Arthur
E. Reyman at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on April 10, 1962, and was closed on the
following day. At the hearing, the General Counsel, each Respondent, and Fibrous
were represented by counsel. Each party was afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence pertinent
to the issues, and each was afforded opportunity to argue orally upon the record, to
file proposed findings of fact and conclusions or both, and to file briefs The facts
are not greatly in dispute The issues derived from the facts have been carefully
briefed by counsel for each party, except Speed-Line.
Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACTS
1. THE BUSINESS OF TI3E CIIARGING PARTIES AND OTHER EMPLOYEES INVOLVED
(a) Speed-Line, a North Carolina corporation having its only office and plant
in Greensboro, North Carolina, is engaged in the manufacture and distribution
of molded pipefittings, covers, and insulators for use in the insulation of pipes
During the 12-month period immediately preceding the issuance of the consolidated
complaint herein, in the operation of its business, Speed-Line shipped products out-
side the State of North Carolina valued at in excess of $16,000.
(b) Fibrous, a New York corporation having its principal office and plant in
Mountaintop, Pennsylvania, is engaged in the manufacture and distribution of pre-
fabricated molded fiber glass pipefitting covers and insulators for use in the insula-
tion of pipes. During the 12-month period immediately preceding the issuance of
the consolidated complaint herein, in the operation of its business, Fibrous shipped
products valued at in exess of $50,000 from its plant in Mountaintop, Pennsylvania,
to points located outside Pennsylvania and, during the same 12-month period,
received goods and materials valued at in excess of $50,000 from outside Pennsylvania
for use at its Mountaintop plant.
(c) Industrial Furnace Supplies, Inc, herein sometimes called Industrial, is a
Pennsylvania corporation having its principal office and place of business in Pitts-
burgh, Pennsylvania. Industrial is engaged in business as an insulation contractor
in the building and construction industry. During the 12-month period immediately
preceding the issuance of the consolidated complaint herein, in the operation of its
business, Industrial received materials valued at in excess of $50,000 from outside
Pennsylvania for use within Pennsylvania. Industrial is a member of the Insula-
tion Contractor's Association of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (sometimes hereinafter
called the Association), an employer association comprised of insulation contractors-
INT'L ASSN. OF HEAT AND FROST INSULATORS, ETC . 693
Speed-Line, Fibrous, and Industrial, and each of them, are now, and have been at
all times material hereto, employers engaged in commerce or in an industry affect-
ing commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers,
AFL-CIO; and International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos
Workers, Local 2, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The provisions of the statute, and contract provisions material hereto
and discussed below
It seems convenient at the outset to set forth the statutory provisions applicable
to the facts in these consolidated cases, and also the pertinent provisions of the
article of agreement between the Insulation Contractors' Association of Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, and International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and
Asbestos Workers Local 2 of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, entered into August 1, 1961,
to expire July 31, 1962.
1. The statutory provisions
SEC. 8 (b) It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or
its agents-
* * * * *
(4)(i) to engage in, or to induce or encourage any individual employed
by any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce
to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use,
manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods,
articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services; or (ii) to
threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged in commerce or in an
industry affecting commerce, where in either case an object thereof is:
* * * *
(B) forcing or requiring any person to cease using, selling, handling,
transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of any other producer,
processor, or manufacturer, or to cease doing business with any other
person .... I
2. The contract provisions
ARTICLE I
It is hereby agreed that an employee includes all employees working in prep-
aration, distribution, and application of any pipe and boiler insulations; insula-
tions of all hot surfaces, ducts, and flues, etc.; covering of all cold piping and
circular tanks connected with the same; and all other work included in the
trade jurisdictional claims of the Union.
This to include alterations and repairing of work similar to the above and
the use of all materials for the purpose mentioned. The work covered by the
Agreement applies to work done at the job site or any other location, including
the Employer's shop, with the exception that distribution as used in this para-
graph applies to distribution of materials at the job site.
* * * * * * *
ARTICLE V
The individuals , firms and corporations comprising the membership of the
I.C.A.P. agree to execute their work as described in Article IX as direct Em-
ployers and not to sublet any of same , nor the labor thereof. . . .
* * * * * * *
ARTICLE IX
The party of the first part agrees to have all their work in the application of
all pipe and boiler coverings, and insulation of all hot surfaces, and ducts, and
11 do not think it necessary to discuss the applicability of Section 8(e) of the Act.
The consolidated complaint is rested on Section 8(b) (4) (1) and (ii) (B).
694 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
flues, etc., and also the covering of all cold piping and circular tanks connected
with the same, executed by asbestos workers. This to include all alterations
and repairing or work similar to the above mentioned and the use of all materials
for the purpose mentioned. No one but asbestos workers shall handle material
after it has been delivered to the job.
B. Background and summary
1. The product and its use
Industrial has been and is under contract to perform the necessary insulation work
on certain construction projects in the Pittsburgh area, including St. Winifred's
Church at Mount Lebanon, Hospital Service Association of Western Pennsylvania,
Montefiore Hospital, Commonwealth Annex Building, and the Bell Telephone Build-
ing at Greensburg, Pennsylvania. The Hospital Service Association, Commonwealth
Annex Building, and the Bell Telephone Building contracts specifically provide for
the installation of premolded pipe covers produced by Fibrous. The other two con-
tracts, while they do not specify a particular brand name, do provide for the use
of premolded pipe covers. Industrial purchased the necessary premolded pipe covers
from Fibrous for use on the Bell Telephone Building project and placed orders with
Fibrous and Speed-Line for premolded pipe covers to be used on that and the other
projects.
Premolded pipe covers, or molded fiber glass insulation, is defined by the president
of Fibrous as an insulation material to cover the T's, elbows, and various bends in
pipes to prevent the loss of heat or cold from those pipes The molded fittings in-
sulations are manufactured in some 150 different sizes and shapes by Fibrous.
Fibrous' president described their use, as follows:
In any modern building a building contains both a heating and a cooling
system, or at a minimum, a heating system, and the hot and cold fluids and
gasses are transmitted to the extremities of the buildings through the pipes as
a conduit. These runs can be considerable in the larger building structures,
and even in smaller units today they do account for a fair portion-a fair
amount of heat loss in that they are carrying with a tremendous amount of
surface hot and cold fluids. The boiler or the plant that produces the heat and
cold is sized so that it has to account for both the heat getting to the place where
it is desired and also for whatever heat loss is encountered on the way, and for
the economy of construction. The architects and engineers design insulation
to cover these pipes to minimize this heat loss, this valuable heat or cold that
is being transmitted. Now, in the straight runs of pipe, the general practice
today is take a piece of premolded pipe covering. It generally can be a number
of materials Generally in what is known as hot and cold piping it is a fiberglass
material and is merely snapped on to the pipe to cover the pipe against heat loss.
The pipe covering is open so that it forms, basically, a clam shell and
then it is snapped onto the pipe of the size for which it was manufactured, then
it is either glued on or bound on with straps of various sorts.
The two halves [taking a 90-degree bend for a 2-inch pipe as an example]
are merely put together around the outside section of the turn and bound with
tape of some sort or a strap.
The manufacture of molded fibrous insulation or covers was described by him:
We proceed first with the manufacture of fiberglass from the basic raw mate-
rials and collect this fiberglass in a mat form, in a blanket on a continuous
process operation , and in its manufacture we cover the fibers with a resinous
bonding material of such -a nature that it will not cure until heat is applied.
This uncured mass of fibers are then stored in cold storage chambers to await
processing. They are removed from cold storage in the manufacturing process
and the raw material is cut to rough shape. These are placed over molds of
the size which are basically pipe themselves, the female covering to give the
exterior form. These presses are formed and by the application of pressures
and heat are molded into the shape. After that they are trimmed and we have
to at this point close our machinery so that the byproducts of the resin cure,
which are primary phenolic, are removed and cleansed before released back to
the atmosphere. [The phenolic] product comes off in the form of a gas and
in some instances an aerosol.
It is said that this gas is a chemical irritant.
INT'L ASSN. OF HEAT AND FROST INSULATORS, ETC. 695
The president of Fibrous testified further that the total investment in equipment
for the molding of the product is approximately $200,000, of which some $75,000
represents the cost of tooling necessary for the variety of shapes and that the pro-
duction of the fiber glass represents an investment as some $650,000. In answer
to a question as to whether the molded fitting insulation could be manufactured at
a construction jobsite, he testified:
No, that is not economically possible because of the requirement of storage
facilities for quite a bulky material. The bulk you see here [demonstrating
it with an exhibit] is one-third the original bulk and another 15 percent of
trim loss is represented in any particular product. In addition, there is a
requirement of sizes that require a collection of massive molds for some 150
sizes, and this is not even now a complete listing of all the sizes of molding
equipment that requires housing and, of course, I mentioned there is a noxious
odor and gasses coming off this that required even our manufacturing plant to
place themselves in isolated areas. We cannot even manufacture now in areas
close to homes or residents or other personnel.
2. Discontinuance of use by Industrial and others
On November 6, 1961, Industrial as subcontractor entered into a contract with
Limbach Company, the principal contractor for construction work at the Bell Tele-
phone Building, in Greensburg, Pennsylvania, for the installation of nonconducting
covering and thermal installation at that building. Contract specifications provided
for the use of Fibrous molded coverings.2
Limbach Company, the principal contractor in each case, entered into subcontracts
with Industrial for the installation of molded pipe covers as follows: On February 2,
1962, for Hospital Service Association, on January 12, 1962, for Commonwealth
Annex Building, on September 5, 1961, for Montefiore Hospital. Steel City Piping
Company gave an order to Industrial for installation work at St. Winifred Parish
on November 9, 1961.
Robert J. Liddle, secretary-treasurer of Industrial, testified that his Company is
engaged in sales and contracting for the installation of both commercial and in-
dustrial enterprises of pipes, ducts, tanks, and other items and fixtures installed in
the construction of buildings.
He testified that on about January 15 or 16, 1962, he called at the Bell Telephone
Building, delivered some fixtures, and talked to Fred Seiler, an employee and work-
ing foreman for Industrial on that job, observed the jobsite with Seiler, and handed
him the specifications for the work to be done on that job by Industrial. Liddle
pointed out to Seiler that the job called for molded fittings. Seiler is a member of
Local No. 2, and, although called a working foreman, he actually spends most of
his 8-hour day in the actual installing of insulation. There is no showing that he
has a right to hire or fire, or direct the work of other employees. At the time Liddle
talked to Seiler, there were two other employees of Industrial on the job.
After Liddle had given Seiler the specifications for the Bell Telephone job and
had gone around the site with him, he said that Seiler told him that he, Seiler,
would have to check with the business agent to see "if we can apply" the molded
fittings.3 In connection with this conversation with Liddle, Seiler testified that after
looking at the specifications he said he remarked that if the specifications called for
molded fittings, he supposed they would put them on. Later, he said that work
started on the installation job on February 17, that he installed six fittings, that
some of the fittings were too large and necessitated cutting them down in order
to fit the bend or the elbow next to the wall and that he had considerable trouble
in installing the premolded cover fittings. He said that he talked to Mr. Ross,
project engineer for the Limbach Company, and Liddle; that he remembered the
2 At the hearing it was stipulated between the General Counsel, counsel for the Charg-
ing Party, Local 2, and the International
Without conceding the relevancy or materiality of the proof covered by this stipu-
lation, the parties stipulate that specifications for the Bell Telephone, Montefiore
Hospital, Hospital Service Association of Western Pennsylvania, Commowealth Annex
Building, and St Winifred Parish call for the installation of molded fittings.
3I do not believe Seiler to be a supervisor within the meaning of the term as defined
in Section 2(11) of the Act Although he is "in charge" of the job, he spends most of
his time installing insulation To use his words "I am a working foreman, I am a helper,
I am the mechanic, and I am alco supervisor of the job . . . I don't know where they get
the name foreman " His job is blueprinted for him
696 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
provisions of the new contract, particularly in regard to "preparation" so that
he called Fred Rust, business agent of Local 2, on the telephone and asked him
whether he could use the prefabricated fittings; and that Rust replied "you have
an agreement in your pocket. You know what the law is." On cross-examination
he denied saying that the fittings did not fit, "I just said I couldn't use them." He
testified:
Q. (By Mr. RoMANO.) Well, just a minute. After you read the specifica-
tions and knew what was in the contract, you are to know in your own mind
whether to put them on would be a violation of your contract didn't you?
A. Well, I wouldn't know. As soon as I read that clause, I knew it was
a part of the prepai ation deal and I knew I wasn't suppose to apply them.
Q. Well, after you got the specifications and after you knew that the prep-
aration clause was in there, did you call your business agent to make sure
that you wouldn't be in violation9
A. That is right, and he said to me, "you have your book, you know the
law," and that is all he said
Q. And you didn't know whether you should put them on or not because of
this preparation clause, isn't that right?
A. Well, I started to put them on, and then I figured, well, I had better start
reading into this thing and see what it is all about.
Q. You had better start reading the contract, is that right
A. Well, the contract-now, that is a complicated contract, also. .
Q. But after the fittings arrived on the job, you were curious to know whether
if you put them on it would be a violation of this contract, weren't you9 As a
union man weren't you curious to know this?
A. Afterwards sure. I want to know what I am doing at all times.
He said again that he knew he would be violating the contract the minute he
started to install the fittings and another time he said, after the business agent of
Local 2 had told him "you have a book" that that remark
meant to me just leave them alone for a little bit until we found out what it
was all about . . . I said to my boss, I says, "I want an answer from you and
I want an answer from somebody else around here before I go to work and do
anything, because I'm not going out on a limb for anybody "
Rust testified that Seiler called him and asked about the premolded fittings that were
sent to the Bell Telephone Company job and that he did not instruct Seiler not to
install these fittings but that he said, "Well, Fred, as far as I am concerned, we will
have to stand upon our agreement and try to abide by what it says "
After talking to Seiler at the jobsite, and after Seiler had indicated that he
would be violating the contract between the Association and the Union if he
worked on or installed molded fittings, Liddle telephoned Fred Rust, the business
agent of Local 2, and arranged a meeting, which was held on January 23. At
the meeting, other than Liddle and Rust, were John Germuda of the Phillip Cary
Company and also president of the Association, William Ross of Limbach Com-
pany, the project manager on the Bell Telephone job, and John W. Kane, secre-
tary of Local 2. At this meeting Rust was asked why Industrial would not be
allowed to use premolded fittings when the specification called for them to which
Rust replied that "they have a word in their contract, `preparation,' that would
forbid us to use them."
Kane testified that at this meeting he:
stated that this was looked upon by the Union as being in violation of
Article I, the preparation clause, and Article V, in the subletting of all work,
and its reference to Article X, which was erroneously marked X. It was
really Article IX.
Article I was brought up in the meeting and the intent of the word "prepara-
tion" when it was said , "It is hereby agreed that an employee includes all em-
ployees working in preparation , distribution , and application of any pipe" and
it goes on to explain the nature of our work . Article V states , on page 6,
"The individuals , firms, and corporations comprising the membership of the
I C A.P ., agree to execute their work as described in Article X," which really
refers to Article IX, "as direct employers and not to sublet any of same. nor
INT'L ASSN. OF HEAT AND FROST INSULATORS, ETC. 697
the labor thereof...." I further stated as the Union's position that this was
looked upon as shipping work out of our agreement, out of our collective-
bargaining unit. It was contrary to the historical and traditional practices of
our trade, and in shipping this work out, we never even knew of Speed-Line
Manufacturing or Fibrous Glass Products. We had no dispute with them then
and we have no dispute with them now.
In answer to a question as to who brought the companies Speed-Line Manufacturing
and Fibrous into the conversation, Kane replied:
Mr. Robert Liddle and Mr. John Germuda brought this information to our
attention, and they brought it in the form of an article that they received
from the Insulation Contractors Association of national scope, and in it it out-
lined the fact that there were some practices that reached the attention of the
courts in other areas, and it related back to insinuations that maybe it was the
belief of the premolded people that maybe they didn't receive lair representation
of their products in some of their areas.
Kane testified further that neither he nor any other official of the Local attempted
to get in touch with Fibrous Glass Products nor did they ever make any attempt to
determine whether or not Speed-Line shifted any of its products to any construction
job within the jurisdiction of Local 2 He denied any threat of strike against
Industrial and denied, too, that members of Local 2 were ever told that they would
be fined by the Local Union if they handled or installed premolded type fittm't
covers. He took the firm position on behalf of Local 2 that the proposed use of
the molded fittings would have constituted a violation of the contract between the
Association and the Respondents on the part of Industrial.
John Germuda, president of the Insulation Contractors Association of Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, was present at the meeting held in the offices of Local 2 on January 23
He corroborated the testimony of Liddle to the effect that Rust and Kane took
the position that under the agreement between the Association and the Local, em-
ployees who were members of the Local could not apply molded cover fittings,
that the Union interpreted the word "preparation" contained in article I of the
agreement to mean premolded fittings, and that the Union would not change its
position because to allow the use of these premolded fittings would be in viola-
tion of the contract: he said ". . . the response that we got from Fred Rust was
that there was nothing that they could do about it, that we had an agreement,
and that they were going to insist that we abide by the articles of the agreement."
Germuda subsequently, within a comparatively short time, reported the results of
the January 23 meeting to the membership of the Association at an Association
meeting. As a result of the position taken by Rust at this meeting, that the contract
word "preparation" would forbid the union members to install the molded fittings,
Ross, the project engineer for Limbach Company, directed a letter dated January 24,
1962, to the Bell Telephone Company in regard to the problem and as a result the
specifications were changed, so that a different method of installation was adopted-
the installation was done on the fittings with glass blanket insulation and finished
with a coat of insulating cement and a vapor barrier, to be done on the job.
On January 23 Fibrous by its assistant secretary by letter of that date canceled
a previous order given to Speed-Line for fiber glass fitting covers, advising that the
cancellation was caused by the refusal of Local 2 and its International "to apply
these fitting covers on contract work." The letter referred to an order placed by
Industrial with Speed-Line for one-half inch thick Speed-Line fiberglass fitting covers
ordered on January 19.
Liddle testified that no molded fittings were purchased by Fibrous for the subcon-
tracts for work at Industrial Hospital Service Association, Montefiore Hospital, the
Commonwealth Annex Building or for Limbach, or for the St. Winifred Parish
project from Steel City Piping Company, although, as recorded above, contracts
were in effect for the first three and a purchase order had been placed with Steel City
Piping Company, later canceled.
The order shipped from Fibrous to Industrial in December 1961, was not used.
Other than the contract orders recorded above for the Pell Telephone and other jobs,
no further orders have been received by Fibrous from Industrial.
Through the initiative of John March. president of Insul-Coustic Corporation, a
national sales organization for the sale of a product competitive to that of Fibrous,
a meeting was arranged with Carl Sickles, president of the Tnternational This meet-
ing was held during the month of September 1961 at the offices of the International
Union in Washington, D C. Present, other than Stanley Krakauer, president of
698 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Fibrous, and Mr. March and Mr Sickles, were Roy Carlson, president of Birma
Manufacturing Company, a manufacturer of products typical of those of Fibrous.4
According to Mr. Krakauer, March, at the meeting in Sickles' office,
Proceeded with a historical background at the meeting and told Mr Sickles
that he had had resistance in various parts of the country to the use of the
molded fitting insulation by Asbestos Workers Union members, and that he had
asked for a clarification of the Union's position as it relates to our particular
product, as opposed to what is known in the trade as miter or handmade fitting
covers and that a member, an officer of the Local in New York had visited, with
a sample of the molded fitting, to Mr. Sickles and had come back with a report
that Mr. Sickles intended that these fittings not be used and not be applied by
his people, and for that reason we were there to try to understand his posi-
tion in this matter.
March asked Sickles to rescind any such instructions which might have been issued
to members of the Union. Krakauer testified:
I tried to explain to Mr. Sickles the method of manufacturing and told him
that was not an item that required the types of talents or equipment available
to the people in his particular trade and that if he would visit one of our plants,
be can see that he was dealing in an area quite foreign to his type of employ-
ment-the type of work that his people do.
Sickles declined the invitation to visit one of the plants. In answer to a question
as to why the manufacturers had not up to that time seen a uniform resistance
throughout the country to the application of fitting covers, Sickles said that he had
then in preparation union labels (decals) which, when prepared and ready, would
be distributed to locals and at that point enforcement would take place, and that
no fitting covers would be installed unless they bore the decals. According to
Krakauer, Sickles said the only label that would be recognizable by his people would
be a label of his union and no other. Krakauer told Sickles then that Fibrous already
had an established relationship over a period of 4 years with the United Automobile
Workers and that Fibrous could not see any possibility of producing under his labels
and he [Sicklesl chuckled and said that this was our misfortune " 5
In answer to a question as to whether Sickles had told him and the others at this
meeting what the policy of the Union was in relation to these fittings Krakauer
replied that Sickles was clear that the members of his International were not to install
the molded fitting covers
The testimony of Carl W. Sickles, general president of the International. regard-
ing the meeting in his office in Washington, does not differ in substantial respect
from that of Krakauer concerning the general matters that were discussed at that
meeting. At the hearing, in response to a question as to what his advice would be
in the event a local union were to contact him regarding a particular question of
premolded fittings, he replied that the advice would be to contact the employer that
proposed the use of these fittings and call his attention to article I of his agreement
and his contractual obligations with the local and "that he would expect him to abide
by them " In connection with the use of union labels or decals, Sickles testified:
Well, the question came up that the decals had been put out and it was the
position of Mr March and his associates that it was for the purpose of eliminat-
ing the manufacturer in the sale of his premolded fittings. which was not or
could not be true because only prior to this meeting by a week or 10 days,
to the best of my knowledge, did I get the information that these fittings were
on the market and were being manufactured by a New York Contractor, the
Richmond Asbestos Company and Mr March, and I phoned our New York
representative to find out what he knew about it, which was very little. if any-
thing; I asked him to go out to the plant and find out what kind of fittings were
being made and, if possible and available, if he could get a sample, send it in so I
could at least see what I was hearing about
4 Krakauer testified that prior to this meeting Fibrous had received a number of tele-
phone calls from contractors asking whether Fibrous was a union shop and if so, what
union it dealt with Fibrous employees are represented by Local 365 of the United Auto-
mobile Workers
s Krakauer testified that in March 1962. difficulty was experienced by a contractor In
New Jersev the Trvbee Oornorntion insulation contractors on two construction projects,
National Lend in New Brunswick and the Princeton Triangle, a composite building for
Princeton University, in trying to use molded fittings
INT'L ASSN. OF HEAT AND FROST INSULATORS, ETC. 699
Sickles said that the union labels or decals were not intended for premolded
fittings:
When we adopted them, and they were for prefabricated fittings that were
made and should have been made under the agreement by our members, either
at the jobsite or at the job downtown. They might make them up downtown
when inclement conditions prevented them from working on the job. They
could have those fittings made up at the shop and some companies make them
and sell them in the trade and send them out to other contractors 6
In response to a question as to whether the words prefab fittings and protective
metal coverings applied to molded fitting coverings, Sickles replied:
Yes, that meant both, to the extent on both fittings they would go to the
employer and tell them that they were under the subcontract clause or the
preparation, either one, and were in violation of the agreement, but it doesn't
tell the members that they "cant put them on." And the article meant that it
was International policy at that time not to use prefabricated or molded fittings
or any other work subcontracted by the primary contractor, the insulating
contractor and that it was on any other work subcontracted by the primary con-
tractor to the insulating contractor.
Under date of April 5, 1962, the following communication addressed to presidents,
business agents, and corresponding secretaries of all affiliated local unions, and signed
by the general secretary-treasurer and attested by the general president of the Inter-
national was circulated:
DEAR SIRS AND BROTHERS: In recent months, a number of manufacturers
of premolded fitting covers have brought NLRB charges of secondary boycott
activity against certain locals and the International, in which charges they
allege that said locals are refusing to handle the products of these various
manufacturers of premolded fitting covers when Contractors in agreement with
the local purchase same for insulation of fittings.
The International is being included as a party in these various NLRB proceed-
ings, based on certain alleged instructions and advice coming out of his office
Certain members of the various locals are of the opinion that the International
has issued orders that premolded fitting covers are not to be installed. No
such order was ever issued.
The International has taken the view that the "preparation" clause of the
various agreements designates that preparation of fitting covers is the work of
the mechanics employed under the various agreements, and that when a con-
tractor discusses use of premolded fitting covers with a Business Agent or other
local official, that the Contractor should be reminded of the "preparation" and
"nosubcontracting" clauses of his agreement and that the Contractor would
be expected to live up to all provisions of the agreement which was entered
into in good faith, including the preparation of fitting covers The Contractor
should not be told that the men will not apply the fitting covers, nor should
the men themselves be instructed, ordered, requested, etc , not to apply the
fitting covers.
If a contractor violates the agreement, recourse may be had under the trade
board provisions, or an appropriate lawsuit for damages under Section 301 of
the Taft-Hartley Act. However, care should be taken to assure that no state-
ments are made either to the members or to the Contractors which would in-
dicate a product boycott of any type
This letter is sent to all affiliated locals so as to clarify the position of the
International , as it was never the intention of this office to do other than
suggest that the Contractor be reminded of the "preparation" and "no-subcon-
tracting" clauses of the agreement . Because the various premolded fitting
cover manufacturers and NLRB representatives are attempting to show that
a non-coercive suggestion to the Contractors to abide by their agreement is in
actuality a threat of work stoppage and/or refusal to handle, you should be
O The official journal of the international Association , The Asbestos Worker, in its
November 1961 issue , carried a minute of the conference meeting of the Middle Atlantic
States Conference held in Atlantic City on June 3, 1961, signed by the secretary of the
conference "The delegates were advised on our policy with respect to prefab fittings and
protective metal coverings " President Sickles advised that the "decals" that will be
provided by the general office should be available in possibly 4 weeks The "decals" will
have serial numbers and will be catalogued before shipment to locals
700 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
quite careful of the language you use when discussing this matter with the
Contractors , and assure that you do not say anything which could be con-
strued as a threat of a work stoppage , refusal to handle or boycott.
According to General President Sickles, when he explained what was meant
by "the delegates were advised on our policy with respect to prefab fittings and
protective metal [premolded] coverings" said:
Yes, that meant both, to the extent that on both fittings they would go to
the employers and tell them that they were under the subcontract clause or
the preparation clause, either one , and were in violation of the agreement,
but it doesn 't tell the members that they can 't put them on.
It seems clear enough , then , in view of all that has been set forth above and
the understanding of each of these three witnesses as to what they each regarded
as premolded fittings, that the Union at all times has regarded and does regard the
manufacture or fabricating of premolded cover fittings as being covered by the word
"preparation " in article I of the agreement between the Association and the Re-
spondents . I so find.
C Concluding findings
During the course of the hearing , several definitions or explanations were given
as to the difference between prefabricated and molded fitting. Counsel for the
Charging Party, Fibrous , gave a lucid explanation of his understanding , confirmed
by testimony herein, of the difference between the two:
Mr. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Examiner, at the very outset of the trial I said that I
thought it was necessary to give you some knowledgeability of the processes,
and we were trying to do that when we were interrupted by objections. I
have learned through some 8 or 9 months of study of the subject that there
are three methods for insulating a joint such as this might be. At one end
of the spectrum, the asbestos worker might take a hand trowel or a similar
instrument and have it mixed in a pail which you would trowel on and covered
with canvas and this would be a completely handmade operation from begin-
ning to end. At the other end of the spectrum you have this premolded or
molded fitting which, as you see, merely requires being laid over the joint
and then fastened together . Now, there is an intermediate step which the trade,
rather confusively, I think, call a prefabricated fitting. If you will visualize
this as initially being a straight run, this has been prefabricated and the men
are now using a fabricated fitting. They will take this in a straight run and
put miter cuts in it on the job. The miter cuts then permit this to be bent
to the desired shape. . And then taking the prefabricated straight run and
manually by miter cuts bending it, they can then use this. This is a sort of
intermediate step. On our end of the spectrum, the molded fitting; on the
other end of the spectrum , the hand troweled fitting; and the intermediate step,
the prefabricated fittings, straight run, mitered , and bent to size.
Mr. Liddle of Industrial , in answer to a question as to the methods in which
a fitting may be insulated , said that it can be insulated with insulating cement, by
troweling it on, or a glass blanket may be put on and held on with staples or twine,
or a premolded fitting or a prefabricated fitting may be used . He said that the
difference between a premolded and a prefabricated fitting is this: the premolded
fitting is something that is made in two pieces, and a prefabricated fitting can consist
of maybe two or three or four pieces glued together . He said further that the pre-
molded fitting can be made only at the factory, and a prefabricated molding can
be made on the iob or in the factory.
It is plain, not only from the admissions of officers of the International and Local
2 but on the proof as a whole, that an object of Respondents ' conduct was to cause
Industrial to cease doing business with and handling the products of Speed-Line
and Fibrous because the latter two manufacturers were not in a contractual rela-
tionship with one of the locals of the International . Therefore , the Respondents
cannot rely upon the "preparation clause" contained in article I of the contract be-
tween the Association and the Respondents as a defense . N L.R.B. v. Denver
Building and Construction Trades Council , et al. (Gould & Preisner ), 341 U.S.
675; Shore v. Building & Construction Trades Council of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
and Vicinity (Petredis and Fryer), 173 F. 2d 678, 681, 682 (C.A. 3); Local 636 of the
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting
Industry of the U.S. and Canada, AFL-CIO (Detroit Edison, Co.) v. N.L.R.B.,
278 F . 2d 858, 863 ( 108 App . D C. 24 ); Sheet Metal Workers International Associa-
INT'L ASSN. OF HEAT AND FROST INSULATORS, ETC. 701
Lion, Local Union No. 299, AFL-CIO, et al. (S. M. Kisner, et al., d/bla S. M. Kisner
and Sons), 131 NLRB 1196; Painters Local Union No. 249, Brotherhood of Painters,
Decorators and Paperhangers of America, AFL-CIO (John J. Reich), 136 NLRB
176; Butchers' Union Local 563, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Work-
men of North America , AFL-CIO [Huntington Meat Packing Company, d/bla
Oxford Meat Co.] ( Monarch Building Maintenance Co.), 134 NLRB 136.
Testimony of the president of Fibrous and the president of Insul-Coustic, uncon-
tradicted, plainly shows that molded fittings cannot be fabricated on the jobsite, but
can only be produced by a factory equipped to process them . It would be com-
pletely impractical and far too expensive to erect a manufacturing plant at the jobsite.
Further , the record clearly shows that the witnesses generally are agreed that hand-
fabricated fittings are entirely different both regarding preparation and use, than
molded fittings. I find that it was not the understanding of the members of the
negotiating committee that they or the parties contemplated that the so-called "prep-
aration clause" meant that the contractors would manufacture molded fittings and
employ only members of the Respondents, or particularly Local 2, to do the work.
The "preparation clause" cannot be relied upon as a defense for two reasons: first,
because it is impossible to find that Industrial in the purchase of molded fittings en-
gaged in subletting or contracting out work; and second, even assuming that this
was intended to be the result of the writing of that clause, it is clear that the parties
cannot by agreement override the plain provisions of the statute. Local 1976,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL and Los Angeles
County District Council of Carpenters and Nathan Fleisher (Sand Door & Plywood
Co.) v. N.L.R.B., 357 U.S. 93, 105.
Any argument to the effect that the dispute of the Respondents with Industrial
was "primary" is ineffective, because it has been shown that the Respondents were
engaged in an effort to boycott molded fittings, and not to force Industrial to engage
in the manufacture of molded fittings in those instances where Fibrous products had
been specified for use on particular construction projects. Clifton Deangulo, Busi-
ness Representative, Local Union No 98, Sheet Metal Workers' International As-
sociaion, AFL-CIO (York Corporation), 121 NLRB 676, 684-5; Local 756, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, et al. (The Martin Com-
pany), 131 NLRB 1010.
Customarily, Section 8(b) (4) (B) is known as the section of the Act prohibiting
secondary boycotts. N.L.R.B. v. Denver Building and Construction Trades Council,
et al. (Gould & Preisner), 341 U.S. 675, 685-689; International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local 501, et al. (Samuel Langer) v. N.L.R.B., 341 U.S. 694.
Although this section does not prohibit a union from taking additional primary
action against an employer by appealing to his employees not to perform services in
furtherance of a labor dispute with that employer, it does prevent a union from
bringing pressure to bear on the primary employer through another employer, com-
monly referred to as a secondary employer, in furtherance of such a dispute.
Violations of the Act have been found where the Union induced the employees
to refuse to handle prefabricated material allegedly in violation of the "prefabrica-
tion clause" of a contract. Local 636 of the United Association of Journeymen and
Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the U.S. and Canada,
AFL-CIO (Detroit Edison, Co.) v. N.L.R.B., 278 F. 2d 858 (108 App. D.C. 24),
enfg. as modified 123 NLRB 225; where the union induced employees to refuse to
handle goods delivered by a struck trucking company, N.L.R.B. v. Highway Truck-
drivers and Helpers, Local No. 107, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (Riss f Co.), 300 F. 2d 317 (C.A. 3),
enfg. 130 NLRB 943; and where it induced employees to refuse to handle nonunion
material, N.L.R.B. v. Local 1016, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO, et al. (Booher Lumber Co.), 273 F. 2d 686 (C.A. 2), enfg. 117
NLRB 1739 . It is immaterial that the Respondent Unions herein have made no
demands on Fibrous or Speed-Line in finding a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and
00 (B). In N.L.R.B. v. Washington-Oregon Shingle Weavers' District Council and
Everett Local 2580 Shingle Weavers' Union, AFL (Sound Shingle Co.), 211 F. 2d
149 (C A. 9), the court held that the union violated the secondary boycott provisions
of the Act by refusing to allow employees of a shingle company to work in its plant
for the sole reason that the company was using nonunion shingles of a Canadian
company, although the union there had made no demands upon and had no specific
dispute with the Canadian producer of the shingles.
As recorded above, in three of the contracts held by Industrial. a specific brand
name was required. Because the fabrication of the premolded fittings is entirely
within the control of the manufacturer, here Speed-Line or Fibrous, an object of
Respondents' conduct must be to compel Industrial to cease doing business with
702 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Speed-Line , Fibrous, and other manufacturers of molded fittings . N.L.R.B. v. Enter-
prise Assn . of Steam , Hot Water, etc. Local 638 of Plumbers, etc . ( Consolidated
Edison Co .), 285 F . 2d 642 ( C.A. 2), enfg. 124 NLRB 521. See also Local 756,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, et at. (The Martin
Company ), 131 NLRB 1010 . And see Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the National
Labor Relations Board for the fiscal year ended June 30 , 1961, pp. 136, 137.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above , occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Companies set forth in section I, above, have a
close, intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor
practices , it will be recommended that they cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act . Respondents contend
that , if a remedial order is issued herein, it be limited in scope and that it not run
against the International . The record discloses a pattern of conduct on the part of
the International and an adherence on the part of the Local to the position of the
International which in turn discloses the likelihood that the conduct complained of
herein may be repeated not only with respect to Industrial and its employees, but
also with respect to other employers in contractual relationship with the Local and
other locals of the International , and not only with respect to Fibrous and Speed-
Line and their molded fittings , but also with respect to the manufacturers of molded
fittings, other than Fibrous and Speed -Line and their products . It appears that the
International intends to boycott molded fittings in all areas where the contracts of its
Locals contain the so-called preparation clause. The proof herein shows that other
employers may be, and actually are , affected by the Association contract enforcement
position taken by the Respondents here. In recommending a broad remedial order
(as I do herein ) to abate what I find to be illegal practices against "any other"
manufacturer of molded fittings in the same position of Fibrous and Speed -Line, I
have in mind the per curiam in N .L.R B. v. Enterprise Assn. of Steam , Hot Water,
etc. Local 638 of Plumbers, etc. (Consolidated Edison Co .), 285 F. 2d 642 at 646
(C.A. 2). Therefore , it would appear appropriate , in order to effectuate the pur-
poses of the Act, that a broad cease -and-desist order be issued including employers
other than Industrial , and manufacturers of molded fittings other than Speed-Line
and Fibrous . Highway Truckdrivers and Helpers , Local No. 107 , International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Independ-
ent (Riss & Company Inc.), 130 NLRB 943, enfd. 300 F. 2d 317 (C A 3); Washing-
ton-Oregon Shingle Weavers ' District Council, chartered by the United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America , affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor, et al . (John E. Martin and Frank S. Barker , Co-partners doing business as
Sound Shingle Co.), 101 NLRB 1159, 1172.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record, I
make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 Industrial Furnace Supplies , Inc, Speed -Line Manufacturing Company , Inc., and
Fibrous Glass Products , Inc., and each of them, are engaged in commerce or in an
industry affecting commerce , within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i ) and (ii) (B)
of the Act.
2. The Respondents , International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and
Asbestos Workers, AFL-CIO. and International Association of Heat and Frost In-
sulators and Asbestos Workers , Local 2, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By inducing and encouraging an individual employed by Industrial and other
employees of Industrial to refuse , in the course of his and their employment , to install
the molded fitting manufactured by Fibrous Glass Products , Inc., and Speed-Line
Manufacturing Company, Inc., and continuing so to do, the Respondents have violated
and continue to violate Section 8(b)-(4) (i) (B ) of the Act.
4. By the foregoing conduct and by stating to Industrial and other contractors
that their members would not install said molded fittings, the Respondents and each
of them did threaten, restrain, and coerce Industrial and other employers in the in
dustry in violation of Section 8(b) , (4) (ii ) ( B) of the Act.
INT'L ASSN. OF HEAT AND FROST INSULATORS, ETC. 703
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the
entire record in the case, it is recommended that the Respondents, and their respective
officers, representatives, and agents, shall:-
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Inducing or encouraging any individual employed by Industrial, or by any
other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, to refuse
to install molded fittings manufactured by Fibrous or Speed-Line or by any other
person or corporation.
(b) Threatening, restraining, and coercing Industrial, or any other person engaged
in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to
force or require Industrial or such other persons not to purchase or install molded
fittings manufactured by Fibrous or Speed-Line or by any other person.
2. Take the following affirmative action found necessary to effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Post in conspicuous places in their respective business offices, meeting halls,
and other places where they customarily post notices to their members, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." 7 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by
the Regional Director for the Sixth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the
iespective authorized representative of each of the Respondents, be posted by said
Respondents, as aforesaid, immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by
them for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondents to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(b) Furnish the Regional Director for the Sixth Region, copies for posting by
Industrial, if it should be willing, on its respective jobsites where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Copies of said notice, to be furnished by said Regional
Director, shall, after being signed by the Respondents, as indicated, be forthwith
returned to said Regional Director for disposition by him.
(c) The Respondent International shall transmit to its various Locals, other than
Respondent Local 2, copies of said notice with instructions to take such action with
iespect thereto as is customary with respect to other communications by which the
International advises its Locals and membership of the action or position of the
International as to matters with which its membership would be concerned.
(d) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of
this Intermediate Report what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith 8
7In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "A
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommendations of a Trial
Examiner" in the notice In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a
decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "Pursuant to a decree of the United
States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant
to a Decision and Order "
8In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read • "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL OUR MEMBERS AND TO EMPLOYEES OF INDUSTRIAL FURNACE
SUPPLIES, INC.
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Re-
lations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations
Act, we hereby give notice that:
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage any individual employed by Industrial
Furnace Supplies, Inc., of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, or any other person engaged
in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, to refuse to install molded
fittings manufactured by Speed-Line Manufacturing Company, Inc., or Fibrous
Glass Products, Inc., or any other person
WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain Industrial Furnace Supplies, Inc.,
of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, or any other person engaged in commerce or in
any industry affecting commerce where an object thereof is to force or require
704 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
any of them not to purchase or install molded fittings manufactured by Speed
Line Manufacturing Company, Inc., or Fibrous Glass Products , Inc., or by any
other person.
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HEAT AND FROST INSULATORS
AND ASBESTOS WORKERS, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
,INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HEAT AND FROST INSULATORS
AND ASBESTOS WORKERS, LOCAL 2, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must not
be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 2107
Clark Building , Pittsburgh 22, Pennsylvania , Telephone Number, Grant 1-2977,
if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
United Fryer and Stillman , Inc. and International Union of Oper-
ating Engineers, Local No. 1. Case No. 927-CA-1128. October
31,1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 14,1962, Trial Examiner E. Don Wilson issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate
Report. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and a brief in support thereof.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this-case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members
Leedom and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the heating and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, with the modifications noted below.
ORDER
The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial
Examiner with the following modifications :
(1) Paragraph 1(b) and paragraph 2(a) of the Recommended
Order are deleted.'
1 The Trial Examiner recommended that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist
from interfering "in any like or related manner" with the rights of its employees under
139 NLRB No. 52.