Int'l Assn. of Heat & Frost Insulators, Local 53

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 25, 1964

149 N.L.R.B. 1075 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

INT'L ASSN. OF HEAT & FROST INSULATORS, LOCAL 53 1075
or any other union . WE WILL NOT question them as to whether they support a
union, or threaten them or discharge them for doing so, or interfere with them
in any way because of their union activity.
AL WAGNER MOTOR SALES, INC,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-----------=----=-------=------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
NOTE.-We will notify Piscitanl ' and Moncrief if presently serving' in the Armed
Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement , or,preferential hiring,
respectively , upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948 , as amended , after discharge
from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office , 720 Bulk-
ley Building , 1501 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland , Ohio, Telephone No. Main 1-4465, if
they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and As-
bestos Workers, Local No. 53 and Reilly-Benton Company, Inc.
Case No. 15-CC-204. November 25, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 15, 1964, Trial Examiner James F. Foley issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in certain unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom, and take cer-
tain affirmative action as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision 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 [Members Fanning, Brown, and
Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
entire record in this case, including the Trial Examiner's Decision,
the exceptions, and the brief, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's
findings , conclusions , and recommendations.
- ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order the Order recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner, and orders that the Respondent,
International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos
149 NLRB No. 102.
1076 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Workers, Local No. 53, its officers, agents, representatives, successors,
and assigns shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order.
MEMBER BROWN , dissenting :
Respondent Local 53 represents McCarty's employees and is party
to a collective-bargaining agreement with McCarty. Claiming that
McCarty breached the contract by failing to award certain work to
them, the employees struck McCarty in support of their work
demands. What is involved, therefore, is a traditional primary dis-
pute between an employer and his employees concerning the scope of
their unit work. I do not regard the subject strike as secondary
conduct and I would accordingly dismiss the complaint which alleges
otherwise.'
1 Cf Orange Belt Daatrsct Council of Painters No. 48, AFL-CIO , et at. ( Calhoun Dry-
wall Co.) v. N L R B., 328 F 2d 534, 537-539 (C A D.C.) ; Heat and Highway Drivers,
Dockmen, Helpers and Miscellaneoum Truck Terminal Employees , Local Union No. 710,
Intl. Brothd . of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America ( TW ilson it
Co ) v N L R.B , 335 F 2d 709 (C A D . C ), and cases cited therein , Service and Mainte-
nance Employees ' Union, Local No . 399, AFL-CIO (Nal Efron, d/b/a Superior Souvenir
Book Company ), 148 NLRB 1033 ; International Association of Heat and Frost In-
sulators and Asbestos Workers, AFL-CIO (Houston Insulation Contractors Association),
148 NLRB 866 , International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen'8 Local Union No 19,
Independent, and International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen 's Union, Independent
( Pacific Maritime Association ), 137 NLRB 119.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
This case, Case No. 15-CC-204, was brought under Section 10(b) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136, 73 Stat. 519), herein called the Act,
on a charge filed January 22, 1964, by Reilly-Benton Company, Inc, herein called
Reilly, against Respondent, International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and
Asbestos Workeis, Local No. 53, herein called Respondent . On February 18, 1964,
General Counsel issued a complaint against Respondent alleging that it had violated
Section 8 (b) (4) (i) and ( ii) (B) of the Act by inducing and encouraging employees
of McCarty-Branton, herein called McCarty, not to install insulation fittings fabricated
by Reilly, striking against the installation of such fittings by McCarty's employees, and
threatening , coercing , and restraining McCarty in regard to the installation of such
fittings, for an object of forcing or requiring McCarty, H C. Wiese, Inc., herein called
Wiese, Humble Oil and Refining Company, herein called Humble, and other persons
to cease doing business with Reilly. Respondent , by answer filed February 26, 1964,
denied the violation.
A hearing on the complaint and answer was held before Trial Examiner James F.
Foley on March 31, 1964, at New Orleans, Louisiana. General Counsel and Respond-
ent were represented , and presented evidence , made oral argument , and filed briefs
after the close of the hearing.'
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF REILLY AND MC CARTY
Reilly, a Louisiana corporation , is engaged in business in New Orleans and Baton
Rouge, Louisiana , installing and distributing insulation materials . It is also engaged
in the business of fabricating insulation materials at Baton Rouge , Louisiana . Reilly
'On February 27, 1964 , the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana , Baton Rouge Division, in a proceeding under Section 10(1) of the Act, Issued
a temporary injunction enjoining Respondent from refusing to install the fittings. Lebus
v. International Association of Heat and Frost Insulation Workers, Local No. 53, Civil
Action No. 2931.
INT'L ASSN. OF HEAT & FROST INSULATORS, LOCAL 53 1077
annually purchases and receives goods and materials with a value in excess of $50,000,
from outside the State of Louisiana, and ships goods and materials with a value in
excess of $50,000 outside the State of Louisiana. McCarty, a Louisiana corporation
with its principal office and place of business in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, is engaged
in the business of installing and distributing insulation materials During the 12
months preceding Febraury 18, 1964, McCarty received goods and materials with a
value in excess of $50,000, directly from outside the State of Louisiana.
Reilly and McCarty are engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act, and assertion of jurisdiction will effectuate the purposes of the Act.
Wiese is a general contractor in the construction industry. Humble conducts a large
construction and construction-maintenance operation in connection with its refining
plant at Baton Rouge, Louisiana Both Wiese and Humble, as well as McCarty and
Reilly, are persons engaged in commerce, or in an industry affecting commerce, within
the meaning of Sections 8(b) (4) and 501(1) of the Act 2
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
A. Background
Humble inventories at its refinery in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, considerable con-
struction materials for use in construction and construction-maintenance work by its
employees, and for construction work by outside contractors. Humble signed a sales
agreement on July 2, 1963, with Reilly, to be effective for a year beginning July 15,
1963, wherein Reilly agreed to furnish insulation material and fittings to Humble.
Included in the fittings to be furnished were elbow covers made up from mitered
segments. In prior years, McCarty and a company identified as Anco had similar
contracts.
On November 1, 1963, Wiese entered into a blanket contract with Humble for
cost-plus construction work at Humble's Baton Rouge Refinery. On November 6,
1963, Humble issued to Wiese a letter of authorization to do the construction work at
its "Varsol No. 3 Production Facilities at No. 1 D & S Unit" as covered by specifica-
tions, engineering drawings, and other specific instructions to be furnished by Humble.
Wiese accepted the letter of authorization on November 7, 1963.
McCarty and other insulation contractors took off the specifications for the insula-
tion work under Wiese's general contract with Humble from the specifications con-
tained in a document entitled Job, "Description for Varsol 3 Production Facilities-
DSLA-1X," dated October 25, 1963, and drawings which accompanied it. They
were issued by Humble, and obtained by McCarty from Wiese. On.page 3 of the
specifications under the heading, "Materials Furnished by Owner," were listed
insulation materials. These materials included the fittings as well as the straight
material. The owner was Humble.
On December 19, 1963, McCarty submitted a bid to Wiese for the labor only on
the insulation work. On or about December 29 or 30, 1963, Marvin R McCarty,
president of McCarty, was informed by Whittaker, purchasing agent for Wiese, by
telephone, that McCarty was the successful bidder. The oral acceptance by Wiese
was standard procedure. McCarty has been notified by Wiese of acceptance of the
bid in contracts involving $1 million to $1i/2 million. McCarty has never received a
written purchase order or other type of written acceptance -from Wiese. McCarty
was scheduled to begin work on January 2, 1964, and have it completed by February 1,
1964.
B. The unfair labor practice conduct
Three employees of McCarty, under the supervision of J. H. Radley, McCarty's
foreman, began the insulation work on January 7, 1964. All four were members of
the Union. They installed insulation material furnished by Humble from its inventory.
Reilly furnished insulation material to this Humble inventory, including mitered
elbows. On January 20, 1964, Richard W. Downing, McCarty's contract engineer,
was informed by Glenn Williams, president and assistant business manager of the
2 Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local Union No. 299, AFL-CIO and
Allen Stout, its Agent (S M. Kisner (deceased), W. F. Kisner, et at., Partners, d/b/a
S M. Kisner and Sons), 131 NLRB 1196.
1078 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union, that McCarty's employees would not install the elbows they were scheduled to
install as they were not made by his people. Radley, the McCarty foreman, had told
Williams about the elbows 3
On January 21, 1964, Paul Harvey Anderson, vice president of Wiese, instructed
Downing, McCarty's contract engineer, to install the elbows Downing ordered
Radley, within the hearing of the three installers, to install them. Pete Daigle, one of
the three, who was the union steward, said they would not install them Later that
afternoon , Radley telephoned Downing from the jobsite and told him that Daigle had
talked to O'Brien , the business agent, and they were not going to install the elbows.
On the same day, O'Brien told the president of McCarty that he would not allow the
union members to install the elbows.
When McCarty contracts for labor and materials, mitered fittings, like the elbow
covers McCarty's employees refused to install, are always fabricated by the employees
in the unit doing the installation, either at the jobsite or in the shop for jobsite installa-
tion. McCarty has had many contracts either directly with Humble or with other
contractors for installation work at Humble's refinery. The contract for labor only
with Wiese was the first one for the installation of fittings furnished by Humble
McCarty had an earlier contract for the installation on tanks of insulation blankets
furnished by Humble All other contracts provided for labor and materials.
McCarty has had many contracts involving other industries for labor only to install
insulation material and fittings furnished by the owner or general contractor.
C. Respondent's defense
Gerald O'Brien, Respondent's business agent, testified that mitered fittings had
always been fabricated by the installation contractor's employees either at the job-
site or in the shop His position was that the installation of elbows from Humble's
inventory that had been fabricated by Reilly was taking away work from McCarty's
employees that they had done in the Baton Rouge, Louisiana, area
Respondent also contends that the installation by McCarty of the mitered elbows
from Humble's inventory that were fabricated by Reilly was in violation of the
collective-bargaining contract between the Master Insulators' Association of New
Orleans & Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Inc, and the Respondent. McCarty is a member
of the Association and is bound by its contract with Respondent Article VI of the
contract provides that the members of the Association will not "sublet or contract
any work out described in Article XI." Article XI sets out the work done by mechan-
ics (journeymen) and improvers (apprentices) for which "rates of pay, rules and
working conditions" are provided in the collective-bargaining contract. This descrip-
tion of work includes the fabrication of mitered fittings at the jobsite or in the shop
for installation at the jobsite. Respondent contends that articles VI and XI of the
contract preclude McCarty and other Association members from accepting contracts
to furnish labor only, where the materials furnished by the owner or another con-
tacting party are mitered fittings or other fittings which, in the past, have been fabri-
cated by the installer at the jobsite or in the shop, under a labor and materials contract.
Respondent, by counsel, in support of its position that the refusal to install the
elbows was in connection with a primary dispute it was having with the Association
and McCarty, offered in evidence the pleadings of a suit filed by Respondent against
the Association and McCarty in October 1963, in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans Division, in which it sought a manda-
tory injunction to require McCarty and Association to arbitrate what it considered
to be three arbitrable grievances under the collective-bargaining agreement. Respond-
ent's counsel considers the applicable grievance to be the third one. He also con-
siders it to include the allegation that McCarty and other Association members are
fabricating, with employees not in the bargaining unit , fittings which they sell to per-
sons not members of the Association for use on jobs where Respondent's members do
the installation Respondent's counsel concedes that the collective-bargaining con-
tract does not cover the employees doing the plant fabricating work for Reilly,
McCarty, or other Association members 4 It is undisputed that McCarty, Reilly,
"Williams testified that lie knew McCarty was it subcontractor for labor only
4 The third grievance, as stated in the complaint in the injunction proceeding to require
arbitration, is,
We believe Articles VI and XI of the contract require employers to do all prepara-
tion of materials used on jobs, either on the jobsite or in their shop warehouse, with
employees in our bargaining unit, including all premitered and premolded fittings and
sidewall segments.
INT'L ASSN. OF HEAT & FROST INSULATORS, LOCAL 53 1079
and other Association members have plants where they fabricate insulation material
and fittings with employees not in the bargaining unit, which they sell to customers
like Humble, who are not parties to the collective-bargaining contract.
D. Analysis and findings and conclusions
It is undisputed that since January 20, 1964, Respondent has induced and encour-
aged McCarty's employees, and has been on strike, against the installation of the
mitered elbow insulation covers to be installed at the Varsol 3 Construction Project
of Humble at its refinery in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, by McCarty under its sub-
contract with Wiese, the company having the general contract with Humble. It is
also undisputed that Respondent has informed McCarty that it would not permit
McCarty's employees to install them They were not installed until the Federal court
injunction was issued on February 20, 1964. This conduct appears to be a product
boycott, and violative of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act. Enterprise
Association of Steam, Hot Water, Hydraulic, Sprinkler, Pneumatic Tube, Ice Machine
and General Pipe fitters of New York and Vicinity, Local Union No 638 etc. (Con-
solidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.), 124 NLRB 521, enfd. 285 2d 642
(C.A. 2); Local No 636 of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices
of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-
CIO, et al (The Detroit Edison Company and Westinghouse Electric Corporation),
123 NLRB 225, enfd. as modified, 278 F. 2d 858 (C.AD.C.); Local 1976, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL, etc. (Sand Door and Ply-
wood Co.), 113 NLRB 1210, enfd 241 F. 2d 147 (C.A. 9), affd. 357 U.S. 93.
The contract McCarty has with Wiese, the general contractor, provides only for
the furnishing of labor to install insulation and fittings, including mitered insulation
elbow covers furnished to Wiese by Humble. Humble is the owner and operator of
the refinery in Baton Rouge where the installation was scheduled to be made. Hum-
ble purchased the mitered elbow covers from Reilly, the Charging Party. There is
no evidence that McCarty, Wiese, or Humble farmed out to Reilly the fabrication of
the mitered elbows to defeat Respondent's pressure on McCarty to have it fabricate
the elbows at the construction jobsite or in the shop.5 Humble has had contracts
with companies other than Reilly for the purchase of fabricated fittings, and has
furnished these fittings to general contractors for installation by insulation subcon-
tractors. Reilly had no knowledge at the time of fabrication, before or after, where
the elbows were to be installed. When Respondent filed the suit against the Associa-
tion and McCarty in the United States district court on October 29, 1963, the contract
between Humble and Reilly had been in effect more than 4 months. The specifica-
tions for the Varsol No. 3 Job at Humble's refinery in Baton Rouge, whereunder
Humble would provide the insulation material, including elbows and other fittings,
were issued by Humble on October 25, 1963.
There is nothing in McCarty's collective-bargaining contract with Respondent that
precludes it from contracting for a job calling for labor only, or requires it to con-
tract only for jobs calling for both labor and materials Article VI of the contract
provides against McCarty subcontracting for fittings it had previously fabricated at
the jobsite or in the installation shop. Obviously, article VI contemplates an agree-
ment between McCarty and a general contractor or owner for labor and materials,
including fittings, and a subcontract between McCarty and a supplier for prefabricated
fittings. Here there is no contract for labor and materials between McCarty and
Wiese, the general contractor, and no subcontract between McCarty and a supplier.
It is clear, therefore, that articles VI and XI are not applicable to the facts under
scrutiny. So Respondent may not rely on the collective-bargaining contract as a
defense.
There is no merit to Respondent's defense that this dispute here is part of a pri-
mary dispute between it and McCarty and other Association members arising out of
the practice McCarty and other Association members have of fabricating with
employees outside the bargaining unit fittings for sale to persons other than Asso-
ciation members for jobs where Respondent's members do the installation. The
record in this case does not show that Humble's purchasing from Reilly, a member
of Association, insulation material and fittings for inventory, and later use by its
own construction and construction maintenance employees and by outside contractors,
5 See Business Machine & Office Appliance Mechanics Conference Board, Local 459,
International Umon of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, CIO (Royal Typewriter
Company), 111 NLRB 317, enforcement denied 228 F 2d 553 (CA. 2), cert. denied
351 U.S. 962.
1080 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and contracting for labor only in regard to the installation of the insulation material
and fittings , represents any change in prior policy or practice . 6 Nor does the record
show that Wiese or McCarty are departing from any prior practice in order to subvert
Respondent 's efforts to protect jobsite work. McCarty has had labor only contracts
with contractors other than Wiese. Contractors must obtain contracts in order to
stay in business . Absent evidence to the contrary , it must be assumed that both
Wiese and McCarty were pursing this all important objective . Sometimes the con-
tracts are not as plump as one might desire , but to wait for the plump ones could
well result in failure, and loss of income for Respondent 's members as well as
McCarty and Wiese.
In sum, on the record made in this case, McCarty was the lowest bidder on an
invitation by Wiese to bid on the installation of the insulation material and fittings
to be furnished to Wiese by Humble McCarty had no contractual obligation to
refrain from contracting for labor only, and to contract only for labor and materials.
There is no evidence of collusion by McCarty, Reilly, or other Association members
to defeat Respondent's efforts to retain for its members fabricating work they previ-
ously had done at the jobsite or in the shop, by fabricating fittings in special shops
with employees outside the unit.
Here, the control over the fabrication of the mitered elbows was not in McCarty.
Wiese's general contract with Humble, insofai as it dealt with insulation and fittings,
was for labor only. Wiese could not have contracted with McCarty to furnish mate-
rials and labor. Humble already had the insulation material and fittings , independ-
ently of any attempt to defeat Respondent's efforts to preserve jobsite installation
work for its members. The Board has held that a union's defense of protection of
work, histoiically and traditionally, done by its members has no merit where the
employer against whom the pressure is directed has no control over the assignment of
this work Ohio Valley Carpenters District Council, etc (Cardinal Industries, Inc ,
et al.), 144 NLRB 91; International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO; Inter-
national Longshoremen's Association, Local No. 1694, et al. (The Board of Harbor
Commissioners, Wilmington, Delaware), 137 NLRB 1178, 1181, enfd. 331 F. 2d 712
(C.A. 3), decided May 14, 1964. See also N L.R.B v. Enterprise Assn. of Steam,
Hot Water, etc. Local 638 of Plumbers, etc. (Consolidated Edison Co); 285 F. 2d
642, 645 (C.A. 2).
I conclude and find that Respondent , in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and(ii) (B)
of the Act, induced and encouraged employees of McCarty not to install the mitered
elbow covers Reilly fabricated and sold to Humble, and which were furnished to
McCarty by Wiese, the general contractor , engaged in a strike against McCarty to
prevent their installation by McCarty 's employees , and by the inducement and encour-
agement and the strike , threatened , coerced , and restrained McCarty, all for an object
of forcing McCarty to cease doing business with Wiese , Wiese to cease doing business
with Humble , and Humble to cease doing business with Reilly.?
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above , in connection with the
operations of McCarty and Reilly have a close , intimate , and substantial relation to
trade, traffic , and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor dis-
putes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has eiigaged in unfair labor practices, it will be
recommended that Respondent cease and desist therefrom , and take certain action
of the type conventionally ordered in such cases . Since the evidence discloses that
6I credit the testimony of Jerry W. Affolter, Humble 's construction department head,
rather than the testimony of Gerald 'O ' Brien, Respondent 's business agent, regarding
Humble's practices dealing with inventorying insulation material and fittings and con-
tracting . for labor only . These practices of Humble are not shown by the record to have
been devised to defeat efforts by the Respondent to prevent the farming out of struck
work , or to protect work its members historically and traditionally performed at the
jobsite.
7It is to be noted that Humble asked Reilly if arrangements could be made by it to
purchase elbows that were acceptable to Respondent Union International Brotherhood
of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helper8 of America , Local 182 , Utica, New
York and Vicinity, AFL (Jay-K Independent Lumber Corp ), 108 NLRB 1323 ; enfd 219
1'. 2d 394 (CA 2)
INT'L ASSN. OF HEAT & FROST INSULATORS, LOCAL 53 1081
Respondent's conduct is conduct that, without restraint, it will engage in not only
against McCarty but any employer engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce, which is similarly situated, the remedy should be adequate to protect the
other employers as well as McCarty. _
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon 'the entire record in the case, I make
the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. McCarty and Reilly are engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act, and Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. McCarty, Reilly, Wiese, and Humble are persons engaged in commerce or in
an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii)
(B) and 501(1) of the Act.
3. Respondent, in connection with McCarty's insulation installation work at Rum-
ble's refinery in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, under a subcontract it had with Wiese, a
general contractor, engaged in a strike, and induced and encouraged employees of
McCarty to engage in a strike or work refusal in the course of employment to use,
process, transport. or otherwise handle or work on elbow covers of mitered segments
prefabricated by Reilly from insulation material, or to perform any services in con-
nection therewith, and threatened, coerced, and restrained McCarty by the strike, and
the inducement and encouragement of its employees, all for an object of forcing or
requiring McCarty to cease doing business with Wiese, Wiese to cease doing business
with Humble, and Humble to cease doing business with Reilly, in violation of Section
8(b)(4)(1) and (ii)(B) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Sec-
tion 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Respondent, International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos
Workers, Local No. 53, shall:
1. Cease and desist from engaging in, or inducing or encouraging any individual
employed by contractor McCarty-Branton, or any other 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, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any
goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services; or to threaten,
coerce, or restrain McCarty or any other person engaged in commerce or in an indus-
try affecting commerce, when in either case, an object thereof is forcing or requiring
contractors McCarty-Branton, H. C. Wiese, Inc., or any contractor member of Master
Insulators' Association of New Orleans & Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Inc., to cease doing
business with each other or with Humble Oil and Refining Company or other per-
sons, in connection with a contract for labor only any one of these contractors may
have to install insulation material or fittings prefabricated by Reilly-Benton Company,
Inc., or other persons
2. Take the following action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post in conspicuous places at its office and meeting hall, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix" 8 and at all places where Respondent customarily posts
its notices. Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 15, shall, after being duly signed, by Respondent's representative, be posted
by Respondent immediately upon receipt- thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that such
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of the service of this Trial Examiner's Decision and Recommended Order,
as to what steps have been taken to comply herewith.9 `
81n the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of 'a
Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be-substituted, for the words "a Decision
and Order "
9In 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 Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
1082 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is further recommended that unless , on or before 20 days from the date of this
Decision and Recommended Order, the Respondent has notified the said Regional
Director , in writing , that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the
National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the action aforesaid.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
HEAT AND FROST INSULATORS AND ASBESTOS WORKERS, LOCAL No. 53
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act , as amended , we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT engage in , or induce or encourage any individual employed by
contractor McCarty-Branton or by any other 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, process, transport , or otherwise handle or work on
any goods , articles, or commodities , or to perform any services ; or threaten,
coerce, or restrain McCarty-Branton or any other person engaged in commerce
or in an industry affecting commerce , with an object of forcing or requiring
contractors McCarty-Branton , H. C. Wiese, Inc., any contractor member of
Master Insulators Association of New Orleans & Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Inc.,
to cease doing business with each other or with Humble Oil and Refining Com-
pany or any other person , in connection with a contract for labor only anyone
of these contractors may have to install insulation material and fittings prefabri-
cated by Reilly-Benton Company, Inc., or any other person.
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HEAT AND
FROST INSULATORS AND ASBESTOS WORK-
ERS, LOCAL No. 53,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Interested persons may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office,
T6024 Federal Building (Loyola ), 701 Loyola , New Orleans , Louisiana , Telephone
No. 529-2411 , Extension 6396, if they have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions.
Puerto Rico Telephone Company and Union de Empleados de la
Industria del Telefono de Puerto Rico, Local 963, Sindicato de
Trabajadores Packinghouse , United Packinghouse Food & Al-
lied Workers, District 9 of Puerto Rico , AFL-CIO. Case No.
24-CA-1833. November 25, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 13, 1964 , Trial Examiner Paul Bisgyer issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled case, 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 Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. He also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain
other unfair labor practices and recommended the dismissal of the
complaint as to them. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief.
149 NLRB No. 110.