International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers

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.