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

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.