Appendix — NLRB v. Plasterers

Supreme Court brief1971

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Supreme Court of the Yuited States

OCTOBER TERM, 1970

Oo:

No. 1184

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

‘Petitioner,

—V,—=

- PLasTERERS’ LOCAL UNION No, 79, OPERATIVE PLASTERERS’

AND CEMENT MASONS’ INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

AFL-CIO, ET AL. © 8 |

No. 1231 |

TEXAS STATE TILE & TERRAZZO COMPANY, INC., |

Petitioner,

PLASTERERS LOCAL Union No.-79, OPERATIVE PLASTERERS’ ;

“AND CEMENT ‘MASons’ INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

AFL-CIO, ET AL.

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF .

APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

INDEX eo,

, Page

Decision and Order : , oe 7 8

Decision and Determination of Disputes : 13

i - °° INDEX

| - Page -

Excerpts Froni Transcript of Proceedings

‘ Witnesses!” y

Floyd. Webb 27

- .~_James K. Ross : = é 42

G. Zambon - | 45

Tom ‘Zambon o 47

George Longshore ee ORB

-Adolph N. Martini = | 55,127

Henry Bertolini — a SS 58.

Allen Colvin .. — & _. i) a

-Elzie Good — : 156

Bennie Harold Moore , 158

‘ L. D. McHargue : nae 162, 313°

James F. O’Connell — | 182

Charles S. Strawn _ 188

George H. Brueggeman - . 196

Marion Linder Saylors | 225

Robert Eugene Und ets . 248

Ernest Alfonse Richter >= 253

_ Harry Duckett - 7 268

Arthur Sanders = = 270

John L, Flowers — Sener. 274

Walter C. Gillespie | —_——- 278

Purl.Guy Thompson | 287

Joseph T. Power - : | . 288

Victor Zambon a | 313

- Exhibits: ' . | |

. - Plasterers’ Exhibit No. 3 315

Plasterers’ Exhibit No. 9 ; 817

Plasterers’ Exhibit No. 35 _—: 321

Plasterers’ Exhibit No. 36- fees 322

Texas State Exhibit1 7 _— 343

Texas State Exhibit 2 —_ _ — 846

Texas State Exhibit 4. te BAT

Texas State Exhibit 7. | 850

INDEX a iti

5) a Page

Excerpts 1 From Transcript of Proceedings —Continved 7

Exhibits—Continued - ; owe

Texas State Exhibit, 12. _ >

Texas State Exhibit 13 _ YY _ 851

Texas State Exhibit 14 oJ 852

Texas State Exhibit 20 en 353

General Counsel’s Exhibit 6 355

ince From Transcript Before Hearing Examiner _ _.._~—s-« 858

Opinion of the Court of Ap cals 361

Judgment of the Court of Appeals _ 369

Order Jof the Court of Appel denying the Schone for re-

hearing and rehearing en banc . 400

Orders of the Supreme Coutt grantj the petitions for

certiorari : * 402

Nn.

_ CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF RELEVANT

¢ DOCKET ENTRIES -

In the matter of: ats are

- Plasterers Loc. Un. No. 79, oti.

23-CD-1338 & 137 ©

‘Charge filed in Case N o.. -28-CD-133. . _

Amended Charge filed in. Case No. 23-CD-133.

Regional. Director’s notice of hearing, in Case No.

23-CD- 133, dated.

Charge filed in‘Case No. 28-CD-187..

Regional Director’s notice of hearing, dated. D..

Regional Director’s order consolidating cases for

hearing, dated. , 74 .

Hearing in. 10(k), proceeding opened,

Hearing in 10(k) .proceeding closed. .

Board’s _ Degisign, and Determination ui Disputes,

* dated.

Board’s- Order consblidating cases, complaint and

notice of hearing; dated.

Regiowai Director’s Erratum to Order consolidating

cases, complaint and notice of hearing, dated.

Petitioner's Answer

Bricklayers’ Masons & Plasterers Int’s Un of po

Int’l Assoc. of Marble, Slate and Stone. Polishers, -

Rubber & Sawyers, Tile & Marble Setters” Hiprs., &

Marble Mosaic.& Terrazo Wkrs.’ HIprs. & Tile Gon-

tractors’ Assoc. of Amer. Inc.’s motion of interven-

tion, dated.

Petitioner’ s reply to motion of intervention, dated.

Bricklayers’ Masons & Plagterers Int’l., Union of

Amer.’s et al reply to shania objections toin- - °

tervention, dated.

General Counsel’s motion to amenti complaint.

()

undated

10.26.67

10.80.67

11.18.67

1.17.68

4.19.68

4.24.68

6.27.68

6.28.68

7. 8.68

8. 7.68

9.12.68

8.31.69

6.30.70

7.30.70

8. 4.70

10. 1.70

12.30.70

1.13.71

3.22.71

Parties Stipulation of Fact. |

‘Texas State Tile.& Terrazo Co’s et al motion to

reopen 10(k) record on issuance of. nation wide

order, dated.

Hearing i in Cases Nos. 23-CD-133 and 137 Bpenen

Hearing closed.

Petitioner’s opposition to motion reopen — 10 (Ic)

record, dated.

Board’s Order denying motion to reopen 10 {k)

hearing, dated.

General Counsél’s motion to transfer case to Board,

dated.

Board’s Order erecting: nidtion and transferring

proceeding to the Board, dated.

Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations

‘Board issued.

Union’s petition for review filed

Motion to intervene filed by Texas State Tile etc.

Board’s cross. application for enforcement and

certified list filed

Order entered granting Texas State Tile etc leave

‘to intervene

Oral Argument Held

Court’s opinion Issued ®

Board’s petition for rehearing and suggestion for

rehearing én bahc mailed

-Intervenor’s petition for rehearing ‘and snaeeation

for rehearing en banc received

Order issued denying petitions for rehearing and

suggestions for_rehearing en banc

Board’s petition for certiorari filed

Company’s petition for certiorari filed

Order of the Supreme Court granting ia petitions

for certiorari

eal Waa ie tai a a Tate ee a tht Ta eo et cgenate ee tes ot PEP pes cane Sy Rim en Ra nae “

: i eS SS eRe oe Sia onan te ene come

A United States Court of Appeals: |

FoR THE DisTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

~ No. 22,078

PLASTERERS LOCAL UNION No. 79, OPERATIVE PLASTERERS

_AND CEMENT MASONS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

AFL-CIO, Petitioner -. . _

; V. :

NATIONAL LaBoR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent

and | 7

TEXAS STATE TILE & TERRAZZO COMPANY, INC., ET AL.,

2) Intervenors =

On Appeal from a Decision and Order of the

National Labor Relations Board

APPENDIX

: iy por ued (

Decision and Order of fh | | ;

Upon charges filed on January 30, 1967, and February

_ 1, 1967, by Southwestern Construction Company, herein ~

_ called Southwestern, and on March 17, 1967, by Martini

-Tile and Terrazzo Company, herein called -Martini, the

General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board,

by the Regional Director for Region 28, issued a com-

plaint on September 14, 1967, against Plasterers Local

_ Union No. 79, Operative’ Plasterers .and Cement Masons

International Association of Houston, Texas, herein’ call-

ed the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had en-

gaged in. and was engaging in unfair labor practices with

the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (D) of the

National Labor Relations -Act, as aménded. In sub- .

stance, the complaint alleges that the Respondent vio-

lated the Act by engaging in picketing and other activi-

ties at the M. D. Anderson Library project, Houston,

Texas, and at the Rainbo Baking Company, Houston,

Texas, with an object.of forcing or requiring Southwest--

ern and/or its subcontractor, Texas State Tile and Ter-

razzo, Inc., herein called Texas Tile, and Martini, to as-

sign the work of applying to walls a coat of Portland

cement miortar upon which tile was. to be installed to

employees represented by the Respondent, rather than

to employees represented by Tile, Terrazzo and Marble

Setters. Local Union No. 20, Bricklayers, Masons and

Plasterers International Union of America, AFL-CIO,

herein called the Tile Setters. The Respondent filed an

‘answer admitting certain allegations of the complaint

and denying certain other allegations.

' On October 30, 1967, at a hearing held pursuant to the

- Complaint and Notice of Hearing, the parties agreed to

_ submit this proceeding directly to the Board for the is-

suance of findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a Deci-

sion and Order. It was agreed that the. entire record: in

' this case shall consist of: The Decision and Determination

_ of Disputes, the transcript of testimony, exhibits, and

* formal papers in the prior 10(k) proceedings,” and the

transcript, exhibits and formal papers in the present pro-

ceeding. The peu waived a hearing before a Trial

2On August 2 22, 1967, ina sroceniing pursuant to Section 10(k),

the Board issued its Decision and Determination of Disputes (167

NLRB No. 23); in which the Board concluded that employees of

Texas Tile and Martini represented by the Tile Setters were entitled

te- perform the work in.dispute. At no time since the issuance of

the Board’s Decision and Determination of Disputes has the

Respondent given written .notification to the Regional Director for

Region 23 that it would refrain from forcing or requiring Texas

Tile and/or Martini, by, means proscribed in Section 8(b) (4) (D),

to assign the work in dispute to plasterers rather than tile setters.. .

Examiner, the making of: findings of fact and conclu-

sions of law by a Trial Examiner, and the issuance of a

Trial Examiner’s Decision. On April 22, 1968 the Gen-'

eral Counsel filed a Motion to Transfer Case to the Board.

On April 24, 1968, the Board granted- the motion.®

“The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Ex-

aminer made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial .

error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.

Briefs were filed by the Respondents, and jointly by Texas

Tile, Martini, the Tile Setters and the Intervenors, which

have been duly considered.

Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board makes

the following:

_FINDINGS OF Fact

1. The ‘business ‘sf the Employers.

The parties stipulated that:

A. Texas Tile, a Texas corporation with its principal

office and place of business located in Houston, “Texas, is

engaged in the business of installing tile and terrazzo.

During the 12-month period prior to the hearing Texas

Tile purchased and received goods, materials, and supplies

valued in excess of $50,000, which materials were ee

_ from points. outside the State of Texas directly to Texas ,

_ Tile at points within the State of Texas.

_ B. Martini, a Texas corporation with its principal oftice

and place of business located in Houston, Texas, is en-.

gaged in the business of installing tile and terrazzo: Dur-

ing the 12-month period prior to -the hearing Martini

purchased and received goods, materials, and - ‘supplies

valued in excess of $50,000, which materials were shipped |

from points outside the State of Texas directly to Mar-

tini at points within the State of Texas.

$’ Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National

Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations

. Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a

three-member panel.

- We find that Texas Tile and Martini are engaged in —

commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of

the Act, and that it will effectuate the paca of ‘the Act

to assert jurisdiction herein.

2. The labor organizations involved.

The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Plasterers

and the Tile Setters are labor organizations within the

meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

3. The Unfair Labor Practices.

A. The M. D. Anderson Library Job

In 1965, Southwestern, a general contractor, entered:

into a contract with the University of Houston to con- -

struct.an addition to the M. D. Anderson Library. South-

western let a subcontract for the tile and terrazzo work

te Texas Tile, which commenced work in August 1966. 0

Texas Tile has a collective-bargaining agreement with - _

the Tile Setters and assigned the work to employees —

represented by the Tile Setters. At the outset of work

in August 1966, the Tile Setters began to apply a coat of

Portland cement mortar to receive tile. The Respondent

claimed the work. The matter was sent to the National

Joint Board for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes.

On November 10, 1966, the Joint Board rendered a deci-.

sion awarding the disputed work to the - Respondent.

Texas Tile was not bound‘by the Joint Board decision.

The record shows, and’ we find, that thereafter, the Re-

spondent, through its representative, George Longshore,

‘made several attempts to obtain work in question but

Texas Tile and Tile Setters refused to accede to its de-

mands.. On January 24, 4967, the Respondent estab-

‘lished a picket at the jobsite The Picket sign read as

follows:

Plasterers Local 79 sitet the refusal of Texas

State Tile and Terrazzo to comply with the National

ipo tg pee nS ARIE Soe - PMI ECG ARSE, ep NIE ELEN SO SN, IT eta PEED BE NATE ae

7 @®

_ Joint Board. Local Union 79 does nét intend by this

picket line to induce or encourage the employees of

any other employer to engage in a strike, or con-

certed refusal to work.

In fact, all crafts working on the job honored :the picket,

causing a complete work stoppage. The picket was re- .

moved after an injunction was granted by the United

States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,

Houston Division, on February 20, 1967. We further

find that the Respondent engaged in such picketing with

an object of forcing or requiring Texas Tile to change

the assignment of the disputed work from its own em-

ployees, who were members of or represented by the Tile

Setters, to employees who were members of or represented .

by the Respondent.

B.*fhe Rainbo Job.

Martini has a eonieace with the Rainbo Rowing. Com-. -—

pany in Houston, Texas, to furnish labor and materials

for the installation of ceramic tile. Martini delivered

its materials to the jobsite on or about March 15, 1967,

and began work the. next day. Martini has a collective-

bargaining agreement with the Tile Setters: and assigned

the work in dispute to employees Eoprerentes by the Tile

Setters.

On the morning of March 17, 1967, the Respondent

established a picket line at the jobsite. The picket sign .

read as follows:

_ Plasterers Local 79, protests‘ substandard condi-

tions Martini Tile Co., Inc., Local Union 79 does

not intend by thijs picket line to induce or encourage

the employees of any other employer to engage in:a

»strike or a concerted refusal to work.

Shortly after the establishment of the picket, officials of

Rainbo requested Martini to remove its employees from :

the premises. Martini complied and,a work stoppage en-

sued.: Thereafter, the Respondent removed the picket and

picketing was not resumed although Martini returned and

‘continued work on the job. Respondent has stipulated,

and we find, that the Respondent engaged in such picket-

ing with an object of forcing or requiring Martini to.

change the assignment, of the disputed work from its

own employees, who were members of or represented by

the Tile Setters, to employees who were members of or

represented by the "Respondent.

C. Respondent’s Contentions

The Respondent’s defense herein, as argued in its brief,

is in the nature of a request for reconsideration of the,

Board’s Decision. and Determination of Disputes issued

in the 10(k) proceeding.. It argues, inter alia, that the

_word “parties” as used in Section 10(k) does not mean

_ the employer and. the two unions or groups of employees

claiming the work in dispute need agree upon a method

for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute for the Board

to quash the Notice of Hearing, but only that the two

Unions or groups of employees need agree upon such a

method: of adjustment, and that since Respondent and

the Tile Setters are both subject to the Joint Board’s ju-

-risdiction, the Notice of Hearing should have been

quashed. We reiterate, however, our. consistent interpre-

tation of Section 10(k) that the employer controlling the

work assignment as well as the rival unions involved

comprise the “parties to such dispute,” and all must ap-

prove and enter into a voluntary adjustment procedure

in order to preclude’ a hearing and determination pur- —

- gsuant to that Section. Moreover, we note that the

_Board’s longstanding interpretation of this aspect of Sec-

tion 10(k) was neither questioned nor disturbed when

the National Labor Relations Act was most recently

4United Association. of Journeymen and Apprentices of the

Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada,

Local 428, AFL (Philadelphia Association), 108 NLRB 186, 195-8,

Local 450, and Joiners of America, Local 1622 (O.R. Karst), 139

NLRB 591. See also our Decision in the prior 10(k) proceeding,

_167 NLRB No. 23, and the cases cited in footnote No. 4 therein.

amended by Congress in 1959. Accordingly, we find no -

Merit in this contention of the Respondent. We have ex-

amined the remaining arguments in ‘support of the Re- .

spondent’s position, and ‘also find nothing therein: which

was not previously considered by the Board. We per-

ceive no reason for disturbing the prior Decision and —

Determination ‘of Disputes.” . . ———e—"

On the basis of the foregoing facts, and the entire rec-

ord in these cases, we find that the Respondent’s picket- .

ing of \the M. 1D. Anderson and Rainbo projects as de -

scribed above was for a proscribed object and in violation

of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (D). |

4. The Effect of the Unfair Labor Practices Upon

Commerce. tS :

The activities of the Respondent set forth in Section 3,

above, occurring in connection with the operations of the

Employers set forth in section 1, above, have a close, inti-

mate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and com-.

merce among the several states, and tend to lead to labor

_ disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and. the

free flow thereof. a \

5. The Remedy. +

Having found that the Respondent violated Section 8

(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (D) of the Act, we shall order it to

5 By motions made on February: 21, 1968, “To Correct Record on

Material Omissions,” and on May: 22, 1968, “To Correct 10(k)

Record on Material Misstatement”, Texas Tile, Martini and the Tile

Setters seek to supplement the 10(k) record with various evi-

dentiary matter that is in the nature of new evidence, which is not

- shown to be newly discovered and previously unavailable. It is

clearly not a “correctién” of the 10 (k) record, or a supplying ‘of

evidence to fill an obvious omission in the record. The motions are

hereby denied. Previously, on, January 17, 1968, the Board denied a

“Motion to Re-open 10(k) Record on Issuance of Nationwide

Order’ filed by the Tile Setters and the two employers, on the

ground, inter alia, that the assertion that the evidenee offered

therein was newly discovered and previously unagellabig, was un-

supported. cali ae

: . Se

cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative

action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.

CONCLUSIONS oF LAW

1. Texas Tile and Martini are .engaged..in commerce

within the meaning. of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.

- .2. The Respondent and the Tile Setters are labor or-

ganizations within the ‘meaning of Section 2(5) al the —

' Act.

3. By its picketing at the M. D. Anderson Library job,

Houston, Texas, with an object of forcing or requiring

Texas Tile to assign certain work (applying to walls a

_ coat of Portland cement mortar upon which tile was to be

installed) to employees represented by the Respondent

rather than to employees. represented by the Tile Setters,

the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices

within the meaning of. Section 8(b) (4) (i). and (ii) (D) .

of the Act. |

4, By its picketing of the Rainbo Baking Company job,

Houston, Texas, with an object of forcing or requiring

Martini to assign certain work (applying to walls a coat

of Portland cement mortar. upon which tile was to be in-

stalled) to employees represented by the Respondent

rather than to employees represented by the Tile Setters,

the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices

within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (D)

of the Act.

5. The.aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair la- |

bor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of ©

Section 2(6) and .(7) of the Act.

ORDER

Pursuant to Section 10(k) .of the National Labor Rela-

‘ tions Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations

Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Plasterers Lo- .

eal Union No. 79, Operative Plasterers and Cement Ma-

‘ sons International Association of Houston, Texas its of-

. ficers, agents, and representatives, ‘shall:

REATARD VLE AITO LOL NEL LE MIE IEEE IE ER

1. Cease and desist from engaging in, or inducing or

encouraging individuals employed by Texas State Tile

and Terrazzo, Inc., or Martini Tile and Terrazzo Com-

pany, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an

industry affecting commerce, to engage in, a strike or .

‘ refusal in the course of their employment to use, manu- .

facture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work

on any materials or to perform any services; and from

threatening, coercing, or restraining the aforesaid per- ,

sons, where an object in either case is to force or require

Texas State Tile and Terrazzo, Inc., or Martini Tile

and Terrazzo Company, to assign the work of applying

to walls a coat of Portland cement mortar upon which

tile is to be installed at the M. D. Anderson Library and .

Rainbo jobs, to employees represented by the. Respondent

rather than to employees represented by Tile, Terrazzo

and Marble Setters Local Union No. 20, Bricklayers,

Masons and Plasterers International Union of America,

AFL-CIO. a |

‘2. Taking the following affirmative action the Board -

finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:

(a) Post at its business offices, meeting halls, and all

other places where notices to employees are customarily

posted, in -Houston, Texas, copies of the attached notice

marked “Appendix”.* Copies of said notice, on forms

provided by the Regional Director for Region 23, shall,

after being duly signed by the Union’s representative, be

posted by the Union immediately upon ‘receipt ‘thereof,

and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days there-

after. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Union to

insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-

ered by any other material.

(b) Sign and mail copies of said notice to the Regional

Director for Region 23 for posting by Texas State Tile

eIn the event that this order is enforced by a decree of a United

States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words

“a Decision and Order” the words “a Decision of the United States

‘Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order.”

. 12.

e and Tevracts, Itic., and Martini Tile and Terrazzo Come “gs

| pany, the Compaities willing, at locations where notices

to its employees are customarily posted. .

writing, within 10 days from the date of this order, .”

what steps have been taken to comply herewith.

) Dated, Washington, D. C., June 27, 1968 «

> » \

JOHN i. FANNING, Member

f > HOWARD JENKINS, Jk., Member |

been!

2 | '. "| SAM ZaGoRIA, Membér —

(SEAL) . NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS (BOARD

| APPENDIX —, oy.

NOTICE TO ALL OUR, MEMBERS‘ ~,

“, PURSUANT TO |

A DECISION AND ORDER

of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order: to

effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations

Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:

WE WILL Nor engage in, or induce or encourage in-

dividuals. empleyed by Texas State Tile and Ter-

razzo, Inc., or Martini Tile and Terrazzo Company,

or any other erson, engaged in commerce, or in an

industry affecting commerce, to engage in, a strike

or refusal in the course of their emplgyment to US.

manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle \

| or work on any materials, or to péPform any. serv- |

ices, or threaten, coerce, or restrain the aforesaid

_. persons, where ah object in either case is to fore 7

ei or que Texas State Tile and Terrazzo, Inc., or

“~e, .

. 9 - : _ OPERATIVE PLASTERERS ‘AND, CEMENT ¢

_ * "MASONS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION

'OF Houston, Texas -- 7

, , , (Labor Organization) - *

Dated one ntennnennapnee _ ockeiiace By

NN This Notice must remain posted for.60 consecutive days -

Martini Tile and _ Terrazzo Company, to assign. the . _

work of applying to walls a coat of Portland ce

ment gnortar upon which tile is to be installed, at

the M. D. Anderson Library job or at the Rainbe ©

. Baking Company, Houston, Texas, to employees

f repfesented by this Union, rather than. to employees

represented -by Tile, Terrazzo and Marble Setters

: Local Union No. 20, Bricklayers, Masons and Plas-

terers International Union of America, AFL-CIO. =

» . .PLASTERERS LocaL UNIon No. 79,

(Representative) (Title)

from the date of posting, and must rt be altered, de-

faced, or covered by any other material. | me

_ Employees may communicate directly with the Board’s’

Regional Office, 6617 Federal]. Office Building, 515 Rusk

‘Avenue, Houston, Texas 77002, (Tel: No. 228-4296), if

they have any questions concerning this notice or com-

pliance with its provisions,

_ Decision {nd Determination of Disputes

This is a consolidated. proceeding under Section 10k)

_ of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, fot-

- Terrazzo Company, “herein called Martini, alleging vio-..

lations of Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act’ by Plasterers

lowing charges filed by Southwestérn Construction. Com-

pany, herein called Southwestern, and Martini Tile and

Local Union No. 79, OpeFftive Plasterers and Cement

_ Masons , International. Association of” Houston, Texas

| heyein called the Plasterers. Pursuant to notice, a hear-

_ Ing was held on April 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13; and 14, 1967, ..

14 on

before Donald H. Hicks, Hearing Officer. Southwestern,

Martini, the Plasterers, Texas State Tile and Terrazzo,

Inc., herein called Texas Tile, and Tile, Terrazzo and

Marble Setters Local Union No. 20, herein called the

Tile Setters, appe2 red. at the hearing and were afforded

full opportunity te °- heard, to examine and cross-ex-

amine witnesses, and “9 adduce evidence pears on the

issues.!

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Na-

tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National

Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in con-

nection with these cases to-a three-member panel.

The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing

are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.

All parties filed briefs which have been duly considered.

Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board makes

the following findings: :

1. The business of the Employers.

The parties stipulated that:. 8

A. Texas Tile, a Texas corporation with its principal

office‘and place of business located in Houston, Texas, is

engaged in the business of installing tile and terrazzo.

During the 12-month period prior“to the hearing, Texas

Tile purchased and received goods, materials, and sup-

plies valued in excess of $50,000, which materials were

shipped from points outside the State of. Texas directly

to Texas tile at points within the State of Texas.

B. Martini,’ a Texas corporation with its principal of-

fice and place of business located in Houston, Texas, is

-engaged in.the business ‘of installing tile and terrazzo.

' During the 12-month period prior to the hearing, Martini

purchased and received goods, materials, and supplies

1 The Plasterers and the Tile Setters are parté3 to the dispute.. |

While Southwestern is the Charging Party in Case No. 23-CD-133,

. fexas Tile intervened as the employer that assigned the work in

tht ease to the Tile Setters. It earuripene jointly with Martini

_ and: the Tile Setters.

| 15

_ valued in excess of $50,000, which materials were shipped

from points outside the State of Texas directly to Mar-

tini at points within the State of Texas. - |

We find’ that Texas Tile and Martini are engaged in

commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)

of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the

Act to assert jurisdiction herein. |

2. The labor organizations involved,

The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Plasterers

and the Tile rs are labor organizations within the —

meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. ol

8. The dispute.

A. The work in dispute is the application to walls of a

coat of Portland cement mortar upon which tile was to be

installed.

B. The basic facts. |

CASE No. 28-CD-133

In 1965, Southwestern, a general contractor, entered

into a contract with the University of Houston to con-

struct an addition -to the M. D. Anderson Library.

Southwestern let a subcontract for the tile and terrazzo

work to Texas Tile, which commenced work in August

1966. Texas Tile has a collective-bargaining agreement —

with the Tile Setters and assigned the work to employees

represented by the Tile Setters: At the outset of work in

August 1966, the, Tile Setters began to apply a coat of

Portland cement mortar to receive tile. The Plasterers

claimed the work. The matter was sent to the’ National

Joint Board for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Dis-

putes. On November 10, 1966, the Joint Board. found

that “the work ‘in dispute is governed by the agreement

of August 22, 1917, and shall be assigned to Plasterers,

except that any coat to be applied wet -the same day

under tile shall. be: placed by the Tile Setters. In the

qusscueecsan eRe EELS FP EMS OO EP ARATE HD

thin-set ‘or qahexies method of supine tile to walls and

ceilings, the Plasterers shall apply the first and second

The Plasterers shall plumb, rod and square all walls, rod

and level all ceilings and the Tile Setters shall apply the

final setting bed for the Tile.” Texas Tile was not

bound by the Joint Board decision. ,

Thereafter, the Plasterers’ made several attempts to

obtain the work in question but the Tile Setters refused

to accede to their demands. On January 24, 1967, the

Plasterers established a picket at the jobsite. The picket

sign read as follows: “Plasterers Local 79 protests the

refusal of Texas State Tile and. Terrazzo to comply with

National Joint Board. Local Union 79 does not intend

by this picket line to induce or encourage the employees

of any other employer to engage in a strike or concerted

refusal to work.” All crafts working on the job honored

the picket. The picket was removed after an injunction

was granted by the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, on Feb-

ruary 20, 1967. The work in dispute was completed by

the Tile Setters.

The immediate work fayolved at the time of the picket-

_ing was the application of a second coat of Portland ce-

tile was to be installed. The Plasterers had applied a

scratch coat of plaster (agreed to be Plasterers’ work).

Then the disputed second coat (called the “brown coat”

by the Plasterers or the “float coat” or “setting bed”

by the Tile Setters) was applied by the Tile Setters.

_ Both unions claim this latter coat as their own work.

CASE No. 23-CD-137

- Martini has a contract with the Rainbo Baking Com-

pany in Houston, Texas, to furnish labor and materials

for the installation of ceramic tile. Martini delivered its

materials to the jobsite on or about March 14, 1967, and

began work the ext. day. Martini has a collective-

—

coats of mortar, that is the scratch coat and plumb coat.:

ment mortar (in the stairwell area) upon which quarry .

NEO nk. hy PASTS aR ERS e Few

_ bargaining agreement with the Tile Setters and assigned »

the work in dispute to employees represented by the Tile

Setters. . Rag. :

On the morning of March 17, 1967, the Plasterers es-

tablished a picket line at the jobsite. The picket sign

read as follows: “Plasterers Local No. 79, protests‘ sub-

standard conditions Martini Tile Co., Inc., Local Union

79 does not intend by this picket line to induce or en-

courage the employees of any other employer to engage

in a strike or a concerted .refusal to work.” Shortly

after. the establishment of the picket, officials of Rainbo

requested: Martini to remove its employees from the prem-

ises. Martini complied. The -Plasterers removed the

picket and picketing was not resumed although Martini

subsequently returned and completed the job. — |

The work in dispute is the application of a coat of -

Portland cement mortar applied directly to metal lathe

which was laid over painted: brick. .The- Plasterers con-:

tends that: this is the “brown coat”, which is plasterers’

work, while the Tile Setters claims that the coat in ques-

tion is the “float coat” or “setting bed” which is tile

setters’ work. The dispute at Rainbo was not submitted

_ to the Joint Board for a decision. Martini filed the

charge. q |

C. Contentions of the parties.

.The Plasterers admits seeking and demanding, through

its representative, George Longshore, assignment of the

work in dispute in Case No. 23-CD-183 at a series of -

meetings with representatives of the ~~ Setters, Texas

Tile, and Southwestern, but contends vs not violate

Section 8(b) (4) (D), as there were no threats to force a

change in the assignment of the work in question, and

the picket line was established only to-protest Texas Tile’s

refusal to comply with the Joint Board’s decision. In

any event, it argues, it is entitled to the work on the

basis of the skill, relative efficiency, and economy and

quality of plasterers’ work, area practice, the award —

made by the Joint Board in. the instant case, and an

agreement made between the Plasterers’ and Tile Setters’

International Unions. It argues that plasterers have al-

ways been entitled to the last coat of mortar which is

plumbed, rodded, and squared to-receive tile. It further

contends that the recent introduction of dry set: mortars

has eliminated the tile setters’ traditional setting bed

in the one coat and thin set methods, and that the last

mortar coat before the application of the tile under these

new methods can be called .the setting bed only if tile

is applied while the coat is plastic or wet; a coat of mor-

tar that is allowed to dry is work properly assignéd to

plasterers. If the tile is to be applied while this last

coat of mortar is still wet or plastic, it does not claim

the application of that coat, in the interest of efficiency

and economy, since it is serving as a combined conven-

tional setting bed and plumb coat. .

The Tile Setters contends? that it is entitled to ihe

work in dispute on the basis of the skill, relative effici-

ency, and economy and quality of tile setters’ work; the

employers area, and industry practice; and ‘its contracts.

with Texas Tile and Martini which explicitly assign the

designated work to it. It argues further that it is always

entitled to the work of applying the last coat of mortar,

which is plumbed, rodded, and squared to receive tik,

ether or not that coat is allowed to dry before tile

{s’applied. The Tile Setters admits that it is bound by

Joint Board procedures, but contends that the Joint Board

award of November 10,_1966, in effect awards the work

to it, not to the Plasterers. It points out that the award

states that. the Plasterers is entitled to the work in dis-

‘pute on the basis of the original (1917) Green: Book .

‘agreement between the. parties, and that that agreement

dealt with the conventional or three coat method of plas-

tering and ‘assigned plasterers the work of preparing

ceilings and walls for the. Tile Setters setting bed. It

urges that the advent of dry set mortars and new con-

? Texas Tile and Martini join in the Tile Setters’ contentions.

a -_ = oe

struction techniques has eliminated work formerly within

the jurisdiction of plasterers under the conventional

method, and when either the one coat (or float coat)

method or the thin set method are employed, the last coat

- applied 7s the “setting bed”, which even the Joint Board.

recognized as the tile setters’ work, a

4, Applicability of the Statute

The charges herein allege violations of Section 8(b)

(4) (D) of the Act. The record shows, and the Plasterers

does not deny, that between August 1966 and January

24, 1967, its representative, George Longshore, sought

and demanded from Southwestern and Texas Tile the

assignment of plasterers rather than tile setters to the

work in dispute in Case No. 27-CD-133, and that on Jan-

_uary 24, 1967, a picket. was established at the jobsite

which caused a work stoppage by all crafts. In Case

No. 23-CD-137,° the Plasterers concedes, and the record

shows, that it established a pickét at Rainbo Baking

Company, and urged Martini to assign the application of

the coat of Portland cement mortar in dispute to plas-

terers rather than tile setters, and that a temporary

work stoppage occurred as a result of the posting of the

picket. oo | a

We find there is reasonable cause to believe that viola-

tions of Seetion 8(b) (4) (D) have occurred, and that the

dispute is properly before the Board for determination

under Section 10(k) of the Act.? | 7 |

* The Plasterers contends that, as the parties had agreed upon a

voluntary method.of adjustment of the dispute, the notice of hearing

should be quashed.: It argues that Section 10(k) requires only that

the unions or groups of employees claiming disputed work agree

upon. a method of adjustment. We find this contention without

‘merit. The Board has consis.ntly held that the employer who

assigned the disputed work must be a party to an agreement that

purports to settle an existing jurisdictional dispute. Local 450,

International Union of Operating Engineers (Painting and Decorat-

ing Contractors of America, Houston Chapter etc.), 119 NLRB

1725; United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,

Local 1622 (O.R. Karst), 189 NLRB 591.

VPA GPP LI LE EL BIELSIOL ISELIN FLEE DAL NG EOIN

200 - .

5. The merits of the dispute.

Séction 10 (Ky of the Act requires: the Board to ae

“an affirmative award of the disputed work after giving

due consideration to all relevant factors. The following

factors are asserted in ‘support of the claims of the

parties herein:

A. Collective-bargaining agreements.

metas Tile and Martini have delegated their bargaining

authority to the Tile Contractors Association.of America, —

Inc., and to the Tile, Marble and Terrazzo Contractors of

Houston, Texas. The Tile Contractors Association of

America, Inc. has a collective-bargaining agreement with

the Tile Layers International Union which specifically

covers work of the type in dispute. The agreement in -

pertinent part defines tile layers work covered as: “The .

application of a coat or coats of mortar, prepared to prop-

er tolerance to receive tile on floors, walls and ceiling re-

gardless of whether the mortar coat is wet or dry at

the time the tile is applied to it.” Texas Tile and Mar- ~

tini, as members of the Tile; Marble, and Terrazzo Con- —

tractors of Houston, Texas, are also parties to a collec-

tive-bargaining agreement pertaining to local conditions

with Tile.Setters Union No. 20 which incorporates the .

above-quoted work coverage provision. . Neither Texas-

Tile nor Martini has any contract with the Plasterers..

Texas Tile does not employ plasterers. A representative

of. Martini testified that on occasion in the past it has

hired plasterers to perform work of the type in dispute,

but never without direct supervision of a tile setter.

There have been no Board certifications bearing on the

work .in dispute.

B. Employer, area, and industry. practice.

The record establishes that, with rare exception, Texas

Tile and Martini use tile setters to perform the disputed

work. Substantial testimony was offered into the record

. — on sé Ae te A EERO OS IT Pig LLP LAER LES LAE LEE OE EE AA OLA ALL ENROLL! NOPE AS ts

PPLE NIE AI LILES LDPE ILE EINE I Ay IE eae Pe BE LS NET POLY LIEE LE LED LE LLEET IO Sue a

. ’

_ by both the Plasterers and ile Setters setting out spe-

_ cific construction projects in.the area on which their re-

' Spéctive crafts performed the work in dispute. Evidence

as to industry practice was inconctusive. Though area

practice by weight of numbers favors the claim of the

Plasterers, in our view this factor is outweighed by other

factors favoring the claim of the Tile Setters. Thus, the

assignments here of the disputed work to tile setters

accords with the practice of the Employers, and is not

inconsistent with area or industry practice.

C. Relative skills and efficiency of operation.

The Tile Setters contends that tile setters are more

skilled and more efficient than plasterers in applying a

backup coat which is plumbed, rodded, and squared to

receive tile, because only a tile setter knows exactly how

to prepare a wall to the closest possible tolerance to

receive tile. It also contends, as do Texas Tile and Mar-

tini, that it is more efficient, especially where only one

coat of mortar is to be applied (as on the Rainbo proj-

ect), to use the same craft for both the mortar work and

the tile laying. The Plasterers contends, however, and

: the record supports its contention, that plasterers are

trained to work to as.close tolerance as ‘do tile setters.

It contends further that plasterers can work faster be-

cause they do plastering full-time rather than part-time,

ard that it is more economical to use plasterers.

“The Board is satisfied from the entire record that

neither craft can claim superior skill with regard to the

application of the mortar bed. Although it appears to

be a necessity to use the same craft for both the last

mortar. coat and the tile laying if the tile is to be set

while the last ¢oat is wet, it further appears that where

the last coat is allowed to dry before the application of

the tile, as was the situation in both cases here, using

one craft or two is equally efficient.

eS 2 ee

Texas Tile’ s and Martini’s assignments, dieretore, were

not ingOnsistent with either the relative skills involved,

or with efficiency of operation.

D. Other agreements.

On August 22,1917, the Plasterers and the Tile Setters

entered into an agreement pertaining to the preparing or

. plastering of walls and ceilings which are to receive tile

in the conventional or three coat method. This agreement

provided that “. .. plasterers . .. shall prepare or plaster

all walls which are to receive tile. They shall. plumb,

rod and square all walls and scratch same so as to guar-

antee adhesion of the final coat which shall be put on

by the Tilelayer to act as a bed for his tile’ A 1924

award entered in eviderice spelled out the division of work

in substantially the same terms.

E. Action of the Joint Board.

Both the Plasterers. and. the Tile Setters agree that

they are bound by the Joint Board. * The Plasterers urges

that in Case No. 23-CD-133 the Joint Board awarded the

work to them in its decision of November 10, 1966, and

its clarification of March 15, 1967. The Tile Setters

argues, as seen hereinabove, that. the ward favored tile

setters and not plasterers. Inasmuch as Texas Tile had

not agreed to be bound by any decision of the Joint

Board, the decision by that body with respect to the

Mz. D«w Anderson project, is merely one of the factors

which we must consider in assigning the disputed work.‘

In Case No. 23-CD-137, there was no Joint Board award.

In view of all of the circumstances, including its am-

biguous nature, and upon the entire record, the Board is

of the opinion that the Joint Board award above-men-

tioned should not be accorded controlling weight.

"4 Local 964, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of °

' America, AFL-CIO (Carleton Brothers Company), 141 NLRB 1138; -

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local

No. 515 (J. O. Veteto & Son), 148 NLRB 351.

F. Conclusions as to the merits of the dispute.

As the Board stated in the J. A. Jones case;* it will, in

conformity with the Supreme*Court’s CBS * decision, de-

"termine in each case presented for resolution under Se¢-

tion 10(k) of the Act, the appropriate assignment of dis- | |

puted work only after taking into account and balancing

all relevant factors. ne 7.

Having considere@ all pertinent factors, we conclude

that employees represented by the Tile Setters are en-

titled to perform the work in dispute. Tile setters are

at least as skilled in a performance of the work as

plasterers, and both Texas Tile and Martini, which as-

signed them to the work, have been satisfied with both

the quality of their work and the cost of employing them.

Moreover, the instant assignments of the disputed work |

to tile setters are consistent with the explicit provisions _

of the collective-bargaining agreement between the Tile

Setters and Texas Tile and Martini, are consistent with.

the past: practice of the Employers, and are not incon-

sistent with area or industry practice. We conclude that

the Employer’s assignment of the work to the tile setters

should not be disturbed. We shail, accordingly, deter-

mine the existing jurisdictional dispute’ by deciding that .

tile setters, rather than plasterers, are entitled to the

work in dispute. In making this determination, we are

assigning the disputed work to the employees of Texas

Tile and Martini, who are represented by the Tile

Setters, but not to that Union or its members. . °

: G. Scope of the determination.

The work which gave rise to the disputes has already

been completed. The. Tile Setters requests an award

which would cover the whole United States or, in the al-

_ 8 International. Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1748, AFL-

CIO (J. A. Jones Construction Company), 185 NLRB 1402, 1410-11.

_* N.L.R.B. V. Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union Local.

1212 (Columbia Broadcasting System), 864 U.S. 573. ,

"24°

‘ .

ternative, an order covering the geographic area in which

the Employers operate. The record will not support a

finding, necessary for the granting of a broad order,

- that the disputes promise to recur between the parties.

- Our present determination, therefore, is limited to. the

_ particular projects at which this instant dispute arose.

DETERMINATION > or DISPUTES

Parsumn to Section 10(k) of the National Labor Rela-

tions Act, as amended, ‘and

going findings and the entiré record in this proceeding,

the National Labor eft hereby makes the

_ following determination of thd disputes.

1. Tile layers employed by Texas State Tile and Ter-

razzo, Inc., and Martini Tile and Terrazzo Company,

who are represented by Tile, Terrazzo and Marble Setters

Local Union No. 20, dre entitled to.perform the work (at

the M. D. Anderson Library, University of Houston, and

the Rainbo Baking Company, Houston, Texas, respec-

tivelf¥) of applying the one coat or fldat coat of Port- |

land cement mortar as’backup material to receive tile,

2. Plasterers Local Union No. 79, Operative Plasterers

and Cement Masons International Association of Hou-

ston, Texas, is not entitled, by means proscribed by Sec-

tion 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to force or require Texas

State Tile and Terrazzo, Inc., and/or Martini Tile and

Terrazzo Company, to assign the above work to plas-

terers. |

3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and”

Determination of Disputes, Plasterers Local Union No.

79, Operative Plasterers and Cement Masons Internia-

tional Association of Houston,. Texas, shall: notify the

Regional Director for Region 23, in writing, whether it

will or will not refrain from forcing or requiring Texas

State Tile 4nd Terrazzo, Inc., and/or Martini Tile and

v Terrazzo Company, de means proscribed by Section 8(b)

pon the basis of the fore-.

_ = =

25 oe -

(4).(D), to-assign n the work in dispute. to piastaree®: rath- ;

mM er than tile setters.

‘Dated’ Washington;«D.C. keris 22, 1967

: JOHN H. FANNING, | Member |

. -- Howarp JENKINS, JR, - Meniber

| a SAM ZAGORIA, a Member

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

wows

[1] BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD -

| Twenty-Third Region

Case No. 28-CD-188

In the Matter of:

PLASTERERS LOCAL UNION No. 79 O. P. & C. M. I. A.

' OF HOUSTON, TEXAS

ee ee

: and

SOUTHWESTERN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

“

Case. ‘No. 23-CD-137

In the Matter of

PLASTERERS LOCAL UNION No. TKO. P. & C. M. I. A.

OF. HOUSTON, TEXAS

. \ : and : ay ;

- MARTINI TILE AND TERRAZZO CoMPANY — | 4

7620 Federal Office, Building, .

515 Rusk Avenue,

Houston, Texas,

Thursday, April. 6, 1967.

‘The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, -pur- |

——gsuant to notice, at 10:00 o’clock, a.m.

» BEFORE: _

DoNALD H. Hick$, Hearing Officer.

* * . * a) * * « * 7

camieeue

[33]. Mr. Capuano: ° I will propose the stipulation that .

on February 10th, 1967, Judge Joe Ingraham, United =—Ss_—

States Distriag Judge, United States. District Court for |

the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, in

Case No. 67H-102, Clifford Potter, Regional . Director,

et al., versus Plasterers Local [34]: No. 79, et al., issued

a temporary injunction against Plasterers Local 79 as a

result of a request by the Regional Director under Section

10(1) of the Act, which was based upon the Charge filed

by Southwestern against Plasterers Local. 79 in Case No.

23-CD-133. :

Hearing Officer: Do you so stipulate, Mr. Carr?

Mr. Carr: I so stipulate, and on the basis of the stip-

ulation, I will withdraw my request for the admission

of the documents.

Hearing Officer: O.K. -Miss Thacker, do you so stip-

ulate? -

‘Miss Thacker: Yes.

Hearing Officer:. The stipulation is received.

[35] + FLOYD WEBB |

was called as a witness by and on behalf of Saathwnctens

. Construction Company and, having been first duly sworn,

was examined and testified as follows: ‘

a * e * . * * * * 2 . «

Direct Examination -

-Q. (By. Mr. Carr) Mr. “Webb, what is your job? A.

Superintendent for. Southwestern Construction. Company.

Q. 1 take it you are a job.superintendent, is that cor-

rect? A. Right.

Q. On what job are you now? A. On the M.D. An-

derson Library job at the University of Houston.

Q. And how long have you been. there? A. Approxi-

mately eighteen months, shortly over eighteen [386]

- months, -about twenty-two months. |

Q. O.K.

I call your attention to August of last year, August of —

1966. Is this approximately the time that the initial tile

and terrazzo work was begun at the M. D. Anderson Li-

brary? A. That is about right, approximately on that

date.

Q. Who was doing the work? A. Texas Tile people

did the work.

Q. And this was Texas State Tile and Terrazzo? A.

Right.

Q. And they were having members of which craft do the

work? A. Well, Texas Tile employees, in. other words,

the Texas Tile Setters Union—the tile company ‘was fur-

: nishing men which were union members.

Q. And these were tile setters? A. Right.

. Q. Union members.

‘Do you know Mr. George Longshore? A. Yes, sir.

Q. What is his title? A. He is a business peat for

the Plasterers.

_* * at * . * * e 6 oe *

{87] Q. O.K.

Then we will go to J anuary of this year, January of

1967.

_ Let’s back-track. Was there tile and terrazzo work

being carried on continuously from ‘August of.’66 through

January of ’67?2? A. No, sir, they completed, in other

words, caught up with the work that could be completed

possibly sometime in October, I don’t know the exact date,

but during October.

Q. OK. |

When did any tile work resume? A. It was in Janu-

ary we received handrails which held up the work and we |

received our handrails and started possibly the secqnd .

week in J anuary, thereabouts.

* * * . «# * * * . 2

Q. Describe basically and briefly the structure, begin-

_ning with the first thing that would be put up in the

construction of this stairwell, and then each additional

elements as it was —_ to it. A. The first thing, the

lather— |

aelba ane at d Sicinrde

ee ae ee, ae

No 29

[38] Hearing Officer: ‘ Just a minute. Let me inter-

rupt you here a second. Are we going, at this point, into

the actual work, itself, or are you still confining your

questioning to whether or not there is reasonable cause

to believe that there is a violation of 8(b) (4) (D) here?

Mr. Carr: I am unavoidably going to touch very

briefly on the type of work involved, with the objeet of

establishing that there was a violation of 8(b) (4)-(D).

I think that the record will have to, to have any meaning

whatsoever to Mr. Webb’s testimony, will have to reflect

very briefly what, the work is. .

Hearing Officer: . O.K. SO

‘Mr. Carr: - I do not intend to make this a statement or

have him testify as to the merits, but just enough so we

can have some understanding of what work jis irivolved.

Hearing Officer: O.K. Fine. Go ahead.

Q. (By Mr. Carr) Now, you were beginning to de- —

scribe the— A. The lathers installed channels and lath

on them, and then the plasterer came in and-— ,

Q. Let’s get more basic, if we could, for a second. A.

All right. | Do,

Mr. Capuano: What area are we talking about?

Mr. Carr: We are talking about in the stairwells.

Mr. Capuano: In the stairwells. ;

[39] Q. (By Mr. Carr) I would presume the first

thing that would go up— AA. In other words, establish-

ing the wall, the lather sets up a meta} channel or a stud

and fastens expanded metal on either side that forms

your basic background. © .

Q. That is what I want you to go into. A. And then

the lathers— : |

Mr. Capuano: I am sorry, could I interrupt you? I

didn’t catch what he said at first-about a’stud. A. It’s

a metal stud that your lather fastens on, in other words, -

in a wall you have got either wood or some support, cen-

ter support,

Mr. Capuano: This is the center part of the wall?

ee ee a

The Witness: That’s right. And you have an ex-

_panded metal lath fastened onto this, and after that is

completed, the plasterer puts his scratch on or first coat,

‘and then in this case you have got one more coat that

follows, which was the float coat, I believe, is the plas-

terex’s term, I] ‘mean the tile setter’s term, which was

_ used as your coat, setting coat or bed coat for the tile.

.And that makes your wall up there.

Q. (By Mr. Carr) Now, we are talking about—you

mentioned two coats, the scratch coat, which was applied

by the plasterer at this job. A. Right.

[40] -Q. And then the float coat which, I believe, can be

generally agreed, if there was a dispute, was the work in

dispute. A. Right, that would be the second coat.

~Q. Now, on top of that goes, in this case, what? A.

The tile would be your next coat.

Q. What type of tile? A. In this we used quarry tile.

‘Hearing Officer: What kind? ”

The Witness: Quarry. It’s a square tile. -It’s about

six inches. . |

Hearing Officer’ Is that the brand name or is it the

type? : . :

The Witness: It’s the type of tile. It’s normally used

in floor or wall construction. .

Mr. Carr: Quarry, q-u-a-r-r-y. .

Q. (By Mr. Carr) In the ‘construction of — stair--

wells do you know approximately when the handrails

were first installed and by whom? A. The iron workers

installed the handrails. It was, I believe, on a Friday,

Thursday or Friday, the first sections ‘were put up.

Q. Do you know— A. The 20th. of January, I be-

lieve. —

Q. In the month of January. . ,

[41] If I show you a calendar would you be able to

identify within a few days the Thursday or Friday we

are talking about?’ A. Yes, sir.

Q. All right. A. We started setting the handrails

around the 17th or 18th.

ee ee ne -

:) |

Mr. Carr: Let the record reflect that that -would be

Tuesday or Wednesday. 7

A. On Tuesday or Wednesday, one. And on Thursday

the lather finished putting his metal lath up. And on Fri-

day the plasterer scratched in.

- Q. O.K. :

‘So ‘this would be, then, Friday, January 20th, is that

correct? A. Right. Right. . ;

Q. This, then, you have testified, that on Friday, Jan-

uary 20th, the plasterers applied what we have previously

described as the scratch coat. A. Right.. os

Q. Was there any work, then, on Saturday or Sunday?

A. No work on Saturday or Sunday. Ye

Q. O.K. | | —— a

_ Then I direct your attention to Monday, January 23,

1967. Can you tell me in relation to the stairwell if any

work [42] was done on that date. A. Yes, sir, the tile

setters put their float coat or bed coat on for the tile.

Q. They did no more than that? A. No, sir, that is ©

all.

Q. They let it dry? A. Set overnight, right, sir. |

' Q. Then I direct your attention to the following day,

Tuesday, January 24th. Was any work done in the stair-

well on that day? A. No, sir. . .

Q. Can you give me‘any reason?’ A. Well, there was

a picket on the job in the morning when we went to

- work.

Q. Do you know who put the picket out? ‘A. Well, it

was by the Plasterers. . .

Q. Plasterers:

* * .* . 7 * * * * .

[45]. Q. (By Mr. Carr) Mr. Webb, you. have heard the

stipulation that has been read to the effect that it was

not intended that there be a strike. Was there any work

done on the project on- Tuesday, the 24th of January?

A. No, sir, there was no work: ;

Q. No work done.

PCE NN AER TIMER SO NRO EIS TS PREM GE TON OT SE EEC INS AIG PIE 0 ENS TIS Pe

PERRET GRRE

Was there -any work done on the following day,

Wednesday, January 25? A. No, sir.

Q. Did you have occasion on that day to talk with

| George Longshore?

Hearing Officer: First of all was there any work to

‘ be done on the job?

The Witness: Yes, there’ was plenty. of work to be

done.

Hearing. Officer: 0. K. Go ahead.

Q. (By Mr. Carr) Did you have occasion on | Wednes-

day, January 25, to talk to George Longshore? A. He

was on the job, yes, sir. We were several there. this

‘morning. We were trying to work out a deal where we

could go back to work.

Q. You mentioned several. Could you tell us any of

the other people that were present? A. Jim Ross from |

our company was there, Mr. Bruggerman, I believe,. Big-

german, Bruggerman, from the Plasterers, Tobin. &

Rooney Plaster Company was there, and Mr. Zambon

‘from [46] Texas Terrazzo, Tile & Terrazzo Company,

was: there. And I believe two of his. workmen were

present at the time. -

Q. Was there anybody there from the Tile Setters

Union? <A. Yes, sir, the business agent, Mr. McHargue.

Q. Mr. McHargue? A. Mr. McHargue was there,

right. I get my names mixed up.

Q. Would you describe this meeting?’ A. Mr. Ross

_ called this to get together to see if we could work together

to see when we could go back to work.

Mr. Capuano: I am going to object to why Mr. Ross

called the meeting. I think he.can tell us what was said.

Hearing Officer: Sustained. Go ahead.

A. Well, this group of men collected at.the job this ©

‘morning, on that particular morning, to try to work out

an agreement where we could go back to work there, and

we more.or less discussed the work that was to be did

there, the work involved, and we had some of the tile

‘there, showing the space it had to be in, where the third

PG EULER SEIS RY OIL EBLE T TON TIE NR ee ee A a ee a ‘

Bitten LEROY

coat, and so forth, wouldn’t work; in other words, it had

to be seratch— , :

Mr. Capuano: ‘I can’t hear you, sir. :

A. A scratch coat and one extra coat or float coat was

all that you could get on behind the handrail. In other

words, you had: such a small Space there there wasn’t

no other way to put another coat on, in other words, to

» level up. And that was discussed around there, and. each

one stated what was [47] involved there. In other words,

the Plasterers were claiming the putting of this coat on

next to the tile, and the Tile Setters were using that as

their level coat or finish coat to bed. their tile to.

Q. (By Mr. Carr) Did Mr. Longshore—you said’ that

he.did claim that'the second coat directly beneath, in this

case because of the tolerance with the handrail would be -

the coat directly beneath the tile, was to be applied by

the plasterers, is that correct? A. Right. |

Mr. Capuano: I am going to object to that. I didn’t

hear him say that. And'I think the question, you know,

is quite leading, did Mr. Longshore claim— _-

Hearing Officer: Yes, it is leading.

Mr. Carr: I think it was merely a recitation, a sum-

mary of the statements that he had just made.

Mr: Capuano: Well, that is what I thought ‘you were

doing, but I don’t recall him saying that Mr. Longshore

made the statement that you made. |

Hearing Officer: It’s very difficult for me to under-

stand Mr. Webb, and I am not sure that he said it in

that manner. Maybe we better ask Mr. Webb again to

speak more slowly and distinctly and tell us again what

did happen in that meeting. | | |

The Witness: O.K. We had a scratch coat on: the wall

_ [48] ready, in other words, for the bed coat or second

coat, and then the next coat, the finish coat, would be your

tile, in other words, that would bring you out to your

finished wall. In this particular case the tolerance be-

tween your handrail and your rough wall or your metal

lath wasn’t. sufficient to get three coats on. In other

¥ PPLE NNT NS RE REALS SPRL NET Re Pe eee Wee

words, some areas there was barely room to get your tile

on plus about five-eighths of an inch. And so this was the ©

plasterer’s, Mr. Longshore claimed, in other words, he

already had the scratch coat on, that this next coat. or

bed coat was their work, too, and if the tile setter put

-it_on he had to cover it with tile the same day that he

put his bed coat or float coat.on. If it was did the same

day the tile setters could do it but if he waited until the

next day it was the plasterer’s.

Hearing Officer: O.K. Mr. Carr?

Q. (By Mr. Carr) Was there any discussion as to the

possibility of putting the tile on the same day? A. It

was discussed, right. The tile setter claimed that if he

put it on the same day it would be too wet for your

- quarry tile to bond to it.- Quarry tile is a heavy tile and

it has to be tapped on and would break your bond, your

_ other coat wouldn’t be set sufficient, wouldn’t be suffici-

_ ently bonded to your scratch coat, and . therefore ‘it

wouldn’t be practical to put it on the same day.

_(49] Hearing Officer: At the time of this meeting had

the second coat already been applied? ~ .

The Witness: In this one little area it had.

Hearing Officer: In one area? |

The Witness: Right.

Mr. Carr: I think I have no further questions.

Hearing Officer: O.K. Miss Thacker, do you have any

questions? — ,

Cross Examination | : *

‘Q. (By Miss Thacker) Mr. Webb, you were piesa

_at this meeting that you described that took place on the,

let’s see, the 25th. Who requested this meeting? | A. Mr.

Ross, I believe, contacted— . |

Q. Mr. Ross requested it? A. Yes, Ma’am. .

Q. And he requested that Mr. Longshore be there, and

Mr. McHargue? A. Right.

Q. What was Mr. Longshore’s request at that time?

A. Well, that they..go ahead and put this second coat on.

SARITA SBOE YEE PENS EER ER SITE OG EEL OS ASEM GE Seer Snare mR

bean UE. nae ARN ena bea Gee tect win “5

‘ther, then. We will see where we go.

on his float coat? [51] A. Right.

tile? A. Right.

' to bond in, in other words, if you tap it or move it: in

Q. Why. Why did he want that? What reason did he

give? A. Well, he. claimed that, as I recall it, a brown

coat, in other words, a second coat, which was ‘the plas-

terer’s. | : _

Q. And what kind of tile was tobe set therein that

area? [50] A. It was the same, quarry tile.

Q. It that a. light or heavy weight tile? A. It’s a

heavy tile. | | :

. Q. You have been in the construction business a num- |

ber of years? A. Right.

Q. Can you set quarry tile on a wet bed? .

Mr. Capuano: I am going to object. I think we are

getting away from what Mr. Longshore did. ‘Why he did

it, I think, would perhaps-go to the merits of the dispute.

Hearing Officer: I think so, too.

Miss Thacker: Well, this has to do with the relevancy

of the dispute and the claim that Mr. Longshore made at

the time, and it has to do with the reason ultimately of

Mr. Longshore putting on the picket. a °

Mr. Capuano: The picket, as I understa d it, was on

two days before this meeting. :

Hearing Officer: ‘Well, go ahead and develop it fur-

‘Q. (By Miss Thacker) Do you remember the question,

Mr. Webb?~ A. No. a |

Hearing Officer: State it again. | . |

Q. (By Miss Thacker) You say that the setter had put

Q. It was wet. The specifications called for quarry .

Q. Can that be put on a wet setting bed? A. Ac-

cording to the tile men’ that installed it, it’s not practical .

to. In other words, if the float coat hasn’t dried enough

any way, which would move in this case—in other words,

if it was on a solid wall, it probably wouldn’t, but on a

lath, metal lath wall, there is some flexibility to it, and

this quarry tile has to be tapped on, in other words, to

— . . = ° ELE

“ onueemate. oC Sd tea Cade Sie tk te ak 58 Bde el al pie ora hs ae - ce Vt Po =

AEP TRT RLY EE BLE DIE III SOTA IOI TOES *

line up, and that would break your bond between your

float coat.and your scratch coat, and it would cause it

to fall off the wall.

Q. Did they discuss the sipplication of a third, coat? :

A. It.was discussed. |

Q. And what was pointed out? A. That it _—

room enough for a third coat, to be practical to put*on, ‘in

other words, some areas you wouldn’t nave any; at all,

there would be less room for it. |

* * * * * * * * + *

[55] Q. (By Mr. Capuano) Mr. Webb, do you know

what type of contract Southwest had. with Texas State

¢ _ Ceramic Tile Company? A. They were sub-contractors

sO to install tile and terrazzo on the job.

* 8) ow * * * * #8 wei o®

[56]. A. No, sir, I do not. \

Q. You don’t know? A. No, sir. ;

Q. 0.K,

’ Do you know Chether it is a prastice of Southwest to

include Joint. Board clauses in their §ub-contracts? A.

No, sir, I do not. ~

'Q. You will have to talk up. A. No, sir, I do not.

Q. You do not know? A.-No, sir.

_ Q. Now, you say Texas State, I will refer to them as

Texas State, and I am talking about the Tile company,

A. All right. — "

Q. They had the contract to do the tile work on the

job? A. Yes, sir. )

Q. Was there terrazzo work to be done, too, on the

job? A. We had sdme terrazzo tread in the stairs only.

Q. I see. That was precast terrazzo? A. ‘Precast ter-

7’ Q _ Now, what tile work did ‘they have in their con-

| 7 A. Ceramic tile in the rest rooms and. the stair- _

‘wells and floors in the rest rooms and stairs.

Q. All right. :

- 7 37°

~ So there was ceramic tile in the jrest rooms in addi- .

tion [57] to this quarry tile you talked gbout? A. Right.

Q. Now, I believe ydéj indicated that some tile was

caught up or the tile company was caught up in October

’66 and then came back. again in J anuaty to continue. A. :

Rigkt. | a

Q. Now, what tile-was caught up in October 66? A.

All of the ce*gmic tile was completed at. that time and

, the largest part of the * quarry tile was completed at that

time.

. Q. The largest part of the quarry tile, too? A. Yes, -

‘gir. |

Q. That is ‘in the stairwells? A. Right.

‘ Q. On the floors or wallsgpr where? A. On the. walls.

*'Q. Was there quarry tile Sn: the floors, too? A. Right.:

Q. How many floors is this building? sd Eight stories.

| -and a basement. 5 ; _

| Q. Eight stories dnd a basement. . - 3

| - How many rest rooms on each floor? A: There’s two

_ on all floors except one, and there is oné 6h that floor.

Q. How many stairwells? [58] A. . Four stairwells.

Q. Four stairwells? |

+ * * ° « . Tan 7 ( : 2

Q. Now, you described for us ow the stairwells, the

_ tile Was put on the staprwells. Could you tell me how it +

* was put on in those bathrooms? What was the innermgst

part of the.wall first? A. ‘Yow have. got. the. same plas-

-. ter, you have got_your studs.

Q. Steel studs? _ A. Steel studs, ‘with metal lath ‘oh all

walls except; one. You haye got one wall was fastened

on masonry. ©

Q. Was that the outside wall? A. Outside wall, ex-

terior.

Q. Was that eibereta block? A. Concrete.

Q- Just concrete? A. Concrete wall.

@ All cas a fe

_gonry, right?

~ [60].

.- » they mix up and put on the back of it and put it on it.

- Q. Do you know the name of that mastic they used? .

I am not involved in that. It’s mixed . ©

~ with the cement.

You put metal. lath on the studding and on the ma-

A. Right.

* * * * *

A. Well, . they put it with a cement mastic that

* * *

A. No, I do not.

_Q. This mastic was mixed with the cemént.

~ Now, you talked about these handrails being put in by

the iron workers on the:17th, on Tuesday, and then on

Thursday the lath was put on.’ You are talking about the

lath in the stairwells? A. Right. —:\

Q. Now, was there concrete walls in some of the walls

of the stairwells, too? A. Yes, the exterior wall, you —

would have one wall,. right.

Q. Would be concrete and then the others would be

steel “studding with metal lath? A. No, most of your

.Stairs, your exterior walls are masonry and your interior

walls was metal lath with studs with the lath on them.

® * = = *

[66]

* _* . * -* *

| any. comments being made by anyone to Mr. Longshore

‘that’ he could fill in the voids in these walls in the stair- .

wells, in other words, if the wall,:after the mortar was

put on by the:tile setter, wasn’t plumb, that he could—

A. The walls. were already completed at that time.

~Q. No mention made of that? A. There was no work

on the walls at that. time.

Q. 0.K.

-Now, you. ‘said that the tile setter claimed he could not

put the - ‘quarry tile on .the wall the same day that the

mortar was put on, is that right? A. And get a good job

of it, no, sir. .

_ Q.-This ‘is what the tile ‘setter said? A. Right. ..

Q. And this is what you were going by, what he said? -:

Oo.

sche ah feds sche dpacun iuna oa Mie Tia aa

. * °° .

Q. Now, do you recall at this meeting on the 25th’

‘ -

Cael | SSO AE IE oe ea teens ~~ a £2 \ query ¥ ~ Pat,

A. Well, I figured } him as a qualified expert, . I mean, in

_ [67] that line of work. ©

Q. Right. So you were paying attention ‘to what he

said: A. I was taking his Judgment as being correct.

Q. O.K. 3

Now, you say there wasn’t room enough for a third :

coat. A. No, sir, that’s right.

Q. What did you mean by that, the thickness of the

wall would be too great to put a third coat on? A.

Well, you would have to see the wall to understand the .

situation. I mean, on the next job it might not.be that

_ , way, but this particular place where your handrails went

on, it was a métal piece installed: inside the wall that you

anchored to, which taken up possibly a half, three-eighths

to a half inch of your wall space, and the tile and every-

thing had to work over that, your lath.

Q.. You had to ‘anchor your handrail into what? A.

Into the steel framing in- your wall.

Q. To the steel framing, right?. A. Right. You

couldn’t just anchor it to the plaster. You had to have a

support in there. And this support taken a part of the

_wall where the plaster normally would have Went or

your back-up would have went. . |

Q. You mean that support would only be —s a half

an inch long so you couldn’t go out two inches on the

wall, is that what you are saying? [68] A. We only had

an inch and a half, approximately, to start with.

Q. Right. A. Finish, that is, from your rough metal

lath to your finished product.

Q. An inch and a half? A. Something like that, at

the: best. By the time you get your metal lath, scratch

coat,-and then if. you protruded out another three-eighths

of an. inch with a piece of metal, you would have scant

room to get a five-eighths space there left, and your tile

is approximately a half-inch thick SO you can. see you

only had—

' Q. Was there any space there in the. stairwells where

" you used more than an inch of mortar or an inch and a

half of mortar? A. There’s some places, yes, sir.

Q. Up to two inches? A. No, there’s no place you had

two inches. You only had an inch and a halt’ to start

with.

Q. Even on the masonry walls, is that right? A.

Well, I wouldn’t. say there wasn’t holes in there where

you had that mach depth. Usually rough concrete has

three holes.

[74] Recross Examination

Q. (By’Miss Thacker) Mr. Webb, wag there a work

stoppage, a complete work stoppage, after the picket was

~ placed? A. That’s right.

Q. Was there still a work stoppage, a complete work

stoppage, after the location of the picket was moved?

A. That’s right.

Q. And that continued until the time of the injunction?

A. Well, it was a few of the crafts went back on to work

but the majority of them was off until the injunction.

Q.°Can you state to your knowledge that Texas: State

Tile & Terrazzo did give the work assignment and it was

being carried out to the tile setters, members of Local

20? A. That’s right. -

Q. And can you state that demand was made in your

‘presence or you were aware of a demand being made

'-by Mr. Longshore that that work assignment be | given to

‘the plasterers? A. ,Right.

Hearing Officer: What work assignment?

Miss Thacker: According to the contract between

Texas [75] State ahd Southwestern.

_ Hearing Officer: From your information that. you

know, what work assignment was Mr. Longshore asking

' . for?

The Witness: He was asking for the biwn coat or

second coat of plaster on the rest rooms an1 stairs.

* * . * * * ee

[76] Q. And you knew what work Mr. Longshore was

- claiming, what work was in dispute, didn’t you? Didn’t .

you just tell the Hearing Officer what work Mr. Long-

shore was claiming? A. Right, in other words, he was

claiming the second coat or brown coat of plaster there.

Q. Or the first coat on concrete block or masonry,

right? A: Right.

Q. And the Joint Board award other than giving the

wrong building name gave that work to Mr: Longshore, -

didn’t it, and the Plasterers? A. Well, it depends’ on

whether you was a plasterer or whether you was a tile

setter.

Q. I am saying that, I think you understood what I.

said, I said that the Joint Board in that ‘decision you

saw gave the work to the Plasterers, didn’t it? A.

Right, but the Tile Setters had already informed. they

wouldn’t abide by the’ decision before it was ever ren-

dered.

- Q. The Tile Setters said they wouldn’t abide by the

décision before it was rendered? A. That they wasn’t a.

member, no. ;

Q. All right.

But you did understand what work the Joint Board

gave to the Plasterers, didn’t you? A. Not in that par- ©

ticular building. Our building wasn’t [77] mentioned

on it. I mean, what dispute they had in some other

building, that had no penne on the case there.

Q. O.K.

When Mr. Carr asked you thé question I believe he

phrased it assuming that the Joint Board had said. the

Anderson Library, right, isn’t that the way he phrased

his question to you? ‘A. Something like that.

Q. All right.

So we were assuming we were talking about. the An-

.derson Library in the Joint Board award, weren’t we?

A. I guess that’s right.

* « * 4 . * * * # * +

[80] - JAMES K. ROSS .

[81] was called as a witness by and on behalf of the Tile

Setters and, having been first duly sworn, was examined

_and testified ‘as follows:

* « * * *. * * * .

. Direct Examination

Q. (By Miss Thacker) What is your position aa what

company are you-with, Mr. Ross, please? A. Vice Presi-

dent Southwestern Construction Company.

Q. Who has the sub-contract on the Anderson Library

building at the University of Houston for the tile work?

A. Texas State. Tile & Terrazzo.

Q. Are you aware of what work assignment they made, ‘

’ to what craft they made the work assignment? A. Yes,

_ I am aware.

- Q. Who was it? A. To the Tile Setters.

Q. Were there any requests or demands made ‘to you |

or to any of your employees by the business agent,. Mre”

Longshore, of the “Plasterers for that work assignment?

A. For part of the work the Tile Setters were doing.

There was none made directly to me. I had heard from

the job that. there was, in.late summer, & question about |

part of the setting.

Q. Was a picket established by the Plasterers? [82] .

A. There was a picket put on the job by the Plasterers,

yes.

Q. What was the-date? A. To the best of my knowl-

edge it was in the morning of January 24, this year.

_ Q. Did you request a meeting with Mr. Longshore and

' the Business Agent of the Tile Setters and other inter-

ested parties as a result of this? A. I did. I think the

following day, in the morning, I tried to get all the

parties who were interested together to see if they could —

meet on the job and establish specifically what the ae

. tions were and try to resolve them.

43 | a

Q. At that meeting did Mr. Longshore make his posi-

tion clear to you as what his request was? A. : aunt

reasonably so, yes. |

_. Q. What was it, please? A. I might say that all the

work that the tile contractor had to perform was, at.that

time, completed except for the balustrades and the stair .

‘treads, rises and landings, had been completed, and that

the question remained at that time who should put the

coat of plaster directly over the scratch coat on the bal-

ustrades of the stairwells.

Q. And he specifically asked that this work be as-.

signed to the Plasterers? A. Yes, to my knowledge he ©

demanded it.

[83] Q. Was there a work stoppage as a result of the

picket? A. Unquestionably. |

[88] So even though this decision refers to the science

building’ you knew that was a mistake and it was refer-

ring’ actually to the library building, didn’t you? A. I

would—I could assume that.

* * * * * * * # * *.

[90] Q. And what type of contract did you have with

Texas Tile? A. We had a lump sum contract for a pre--

_ scribed amount, a defined work area of work. |

Q. And did that— A. Which did include, which was .

based on the way the [91] specifications and plans were

written.

Q. Did it have any provision in there for hinding Texas

Tile to the Joint Board? A. It did not.

Q. There-was no provision saying that Texas Tile was

bound by all the terms of the general contractor’s agree-

ment with the owner or anything like that? A. No.

_ . * * * * * * * * *

[92] Q. So as. far as you know there was nothing in

your own contract with Texas ‘Tile binding them to the

Texas Board?. A. I know there was nothing—

PAG gaye Nae SRM Wid BNE RI TT ON. RIE OIE ARAL! EE IO LIL IOI LID LENE TL OEE LL Ty ee eee ee em

Q. I can’t hear you, sir. A. I know there was nothing

- in my contract, and: I haven’t found anything in my con-

_ tract with the owner that would require it.

Q. Have you checked the general conditions to see if

there was anything on settlement of jurisdictional dis-

putes? A. Yes.

Q. And there was nothing in there either? A. I can’t

find it. .

Q. O.K.

_ Now, you say that Longshore | was asking for the coat

of mortar on the balustrades, I believe is the way you put

it. A., At the time I met him the only work remaining,

as I told you, was, that the tile setter had to do, was the

quarry tile on the balustrades. .

Q. What are you talking about, balustrades, now? A.

That’s the center rail on the stair.

Q. Yes, I know that. Balustrades are usually small—

A. Well, the dividing, this was a solid— ;

[93] Q. You are talking about a partition, .aren’t ‘your

A. Small partition. —

Q. Right. A. Handrail at the center of a stairwell.

Q. Right.

That was about four or — inches wide, was it? A.

Well, I don’t.remember how wide.

Q. Ye. =f 7

They weren’t individual posts that 1 we were claiming? ,

A. No, it. was a solid, low wall. |

‘Q. Right, solid, low wall. And what were the plasterers

or what did you understand Mr. Longshore was claiming,

then? A..An additional coat of plaster over the scratch

coat. | .

Q. .All right.

Now, « this is what the Plasterehs were claiming all

‘along, wasn’t it, the second coat of mortar on the scratch

or the first on the block? A. I presume that is what they.

were, this. was my first contact with him directly, and i

_ presume that that is what he had a question about, yes.

45 |

Q You hadn’t heard from anybody élse prior te that?

A*I had heard from our superintendent that there had

been a discussion on the job prior to that time

Q. And that was Mr. Longshore’s claim, then? A. I

didn’t hear it directly from Mr. Longshore, -but I think |

[94]. that i is where it came from, yes.

* # * |: & * * * 2 *.

[97] Q. You knew it applied to that job, didn’t you? A.

Probably so.

__ Q. Did Mr. Zambon tell you he even wrote to the Juint ;

Board and told them they made a mistake in— A. I

think-he did, yes.

Q. So to finish my question, told the Joint Board that |

they. had the wrong job listed on their decision, and your

answer to that was yes, he did? A. Well, they didn’t

change it.

Q. Pardon me? A.*They didn’t change it even March |

15, aI recall.

Q. That’s right, they didn’t change it, but, he told you

that he wrote this telegram or letter? A. I believe he

did. I did not send them anything on it.

eo. * # * * * * *- + *

[101] | ¢ ZAMBON.

cwas called as a witness by and on behalf of the Tile

Setters and, having been first duly sworn, was éxamined

andl testified as follows:

Hearing Officer: Give the reporter your 1 name and ad-

dress, please. -

The Witness: My name is G. Zambon, and I am Presi-

dent of the Texas State Tile & Terrazzo, Tncoxporated,

of Houston, Texas. i

* * * * * "* #- *, * *

[102] @irect Examination -

Q. (By Miss Thacker) Mr. Zambon, % were you the sub-

contractor on the library building at the’ University of

4 =.

Houston on which Southwestern Construction - was ‘the

general contractor? A. Yes.

_ Q. What work assignment did you make in this par-

‘ticular contract? A. Assignment to—

Q. The craft, what craft did you give the work assign-

ment to'in this particular work? = To the Tile hesumiaiae

Local No, 20.

* * * * * * # * * *

[103] Q. (By Miss Thacker) Was there a picket estab-

lished on the job? -A. Yes.

_Q. And did all ibaa stop as a result thereof ? A: Right.

Cross Examination .

[107] Q 0. K. -

Now, you. realize some time between the | date of that

telegram and sometime in January, anyway, that the dis-

pute was really over the Anderson Library, didn’t you,

not a science building? A. Well, I presumed that is what

it was, ‘that is true. [108] I presumed it was over the

M. D. Anderson Library.

Q. Right. And it was just a mistake on the Joint.

_ Board’s part calling it the science building, or a mistake

. on somebody’s part. A: That is what I presumed, - yes,

- gir.

Q. Right. And in fact, in January you sent the Joint

Board another telegram correcting it for themn—- 7 ;

Correct.

-Q. —so that it would say Anderson Library, right? A.

Correct. |

* * * * * * * * * | *

[110]. Redirect Examination

Q. (By Miss Thacker) Mr. oe you have stated

for the record that you are not bound by any decisions by

the National Joint Board. A. Correct.

Q. You belong to the local chapter of Tile Contitectors?

: A. Yes,

ee ies

- * * * * . «* * * * a +

Q. Do they bind themselves to the decisions of the Na-.

tional Joint Board? A. No. . : a a

Q. You ‘are a member of the National Contractors Asso-

ciation? A. Yes

Q. Do they bind themselves to any decisions of the Na-

tional [111] Joint Board? A. No. } Pe

a (eS

[112] +4 TOM ZAMBON site

was called as a witness by and~on behalf of the Tile Set-

ters and, having been first duly sworn, was examined and

testified as follows: . ;

° ?

[113] Direct Examination :

Q. (By Miss Thacker) Mr. Zambon, what is your posi-

tion with Texas State Tile & Terrazzo? ‘A. Tile setter. —

Q. You were foreman on the library job at the Univer-

. sity of Houston? A. Yeah. 7 |

Q. Did Mr. Longshore, Business Agent of the Plasterers.

Local Union 79, ever approach you in ¢onnection with the

work there? A. Sure, quite a few times. .

_Q. To whom had you made the work assignment? A. ;

| | | .

To the Tile Setters.

Q. To the Tile Setters, Local Union 20? A. To No. 20, .

Q, And Mr. Longshore asked you for the work, that it.

be assigned to his plasterers? A. Yeah. t+ ty

* * 7 * ee * J : # # * ‘oe

[118]" Q. All right. . | _

Now you are talking about over metal lath-right where _

you put— A. Over metal lath, that’s right.

Q. Right. And on the block there wasn’t a scratch coat,

-, justya coat of your mud., A. The block was the same

thing, the stairwells over there, they were on mesh.

_rooms. A. Well, you talked about the stairwells a while

" ago. :

48 .-

“> .Q. No, I talked sbouk the bathrooms. A. 'W: ell, the

bathrooms-I use the same principle. |

Q. Yes, I realize that, but.on the lath you had t}

scratch coat put on-by the piasterers? A. That’s right. ~

ng And the coat you put on and then you put your tile

-A. That’s right. |

*"Q. ‘And the concrete block, the wall that was the exter- _

ior wall, concrete wall, you put on just a-coat of mud for

- the tile setters. A. Right, one. coat.

Q. One coat, and the tile setters pa that on? A.

-¢ .. That’s right.

- Q. Now, how did you put your tile ont [119] A.

With cement. .

Q. What kind of cement? A. Cement that get a good .

bonding on my tile.

— Q. You put that on the next day, though. A. The next

day, yes.

Q. Did you wet your tile? A. Huh? They don’t have

__~ to be wet. —

"Q. What did you use— A. Not the quarry tile. Quarry —

~ tile don’t ~have to be wet. .

-Q. I am talking about the tigtiarcedhec I haven’t asked

- ‘you about the'stairwells. A. Well, you went back over on

the stairwells on the exterior walls.

Q. I didn’t say anything about. the stairwells. You

> fgets an, exterior .wall in the bathrooms, too, a you? :

% Yea ‘

a @ Wall that is what I was talking about. . On what -

oy you put in the cement: that you used the next day?

A: I used some compound there to slow my cement, that |

is all. I have been doing it for forty years. |

Q. You have been using that compound for forty years?

A. That’s szight.

Q. What kind of compound was it? A. Well, it’s con-

. centrate.

Q. What is the name of it? [120] A. Concentrate.

That i is what is the name of it. ~

49. a

~__Q. Has it got a.commercial name to it? A. They have

got a lot. of different names. _ : :

Q. What kind were you using? A. Concentrate. '

; Q. That is the name of it, just concentrate? - A. That’s

right.. - | | | i ts

- Q. No beand name to it? A. No. sO f

Q. No brand name on it? A. I Jon’t ‘Know. What

brand name it got?. They have got*éoncentrate ‘on it.

' What is the difference, anyway? -

* - * . * - * * *- *- oe

_ [122] - Hearing Officer: On the record. +

, _ Invan off-the-record discussion it’s my understanding

, that where you have a concrete wall a coat of mortar or,

plaster, whatever you want to call it, is attached to the

concrete wall. This is called a brown coat by the Plaster-

ers [123] and a float coat by the Tile Setters, Now, is

| this work that the plasters are claiming as their work?

i- Mr. Capuano: Yes. : en ee, es

Hearing Officer: And Miss Thacker, is this work that

the Tile Setters are claiming as their work? ~~

Miss Thacker: ° Yes. ) 7 } +

' Hearing Officer: Now, in a situation where you have

. @metal-lath, a coat of plaster or scratch coat, which this is

called, I believe, is attached, to the metal lath. Now, to

_ , My understanding there is no dispute that this is Plaster-

ers’ work, but then. another coat may be applied to |

. Seratch coat; and this is e4lted-a brown coat by the Plaster- .

sand a float coat by the, Tile Setters, Now, this bro

coat or flat coat, as it’s called by the Tile Setters, do

claim this as your work, Mr.:Capuano? ee :

Mr. Capuano: Yes, we do except that I think we have

to go one step further. I don’t think we covered that in ‘”-

the off-the-record discussion. We claim it if the tile is not. =

set on that brown coat the same day. ear

. Hearing Officer: Isee - | ae aa

Mr. Capuano: In other words, if they can set their

tile the same day in that brown coat, we also call it the

a!)

plumb coat, then we would not claim it or, as I said ear-

lier, we claim it but_we do not raise any dispute about it.

But if the tile is not going to be set in the brown coat

_ [124] while it’s still plastic or wet, in other words, you

are going to come back the next day and set the tile, thert

we claim that brown or plumb coat, yess sir. |

Hearing Officer: I see:

Miss Thacker: It is our contention that it is irrespec-

. tive of whether’that coat is wet or dry, that it belongs to

us, and that that is the decision of the tile contractor to

make as to when he wants to apply his tile.

Hearing Officer: O.K. Well, we won’t get into that.:

Miss Thacker: No. .°

Hearing Officer: It’s ‘just the fact: that you are claim-

ing this work that we talked about. .

“Miss Thacker:: Yes.

Mr. Capuano: Excuse me. That would also apply even

when there is one coat on concrete walls or masonry, ‘too.

-In other words, if they can apply their tile while it’s wet,

we would -not raise any question about it either, and to

- elarify it a little further, when we said concrete walls that

is what we had here, but we are talking about any sort of

masonry, concrete block, clay tile, brick, even, if you have

brick. In other words, any hard masonry surface.

Hearing Officer: I see: And so maybe the record will

_ be clear, we talked about the conventional method that is

used. So would somebody please describe that?

Mr. Capuane: Yes, |

_-[125]° In taking the same- situation, .métal lath over

studding, you know. what the studs are, the two by fours

running up and down, or steel studs, you would have a

seratch coat on the metal lath to stiffen it, one coat.

‘The second coat would be a plumb coat or brown coat,

which would be put,on to plumb.and square the room,

plumb the wall, make it straight.

Those two, I believe will be serge, are 2 Plajerers

work. °

The third coat will be put on by the Tile Sétters and

he beds his tile in that. That is his setting bed. That

would b¢the conver:ional method. — :

Miss ‘Thacker: There is one qualification on that,

‘which I presume was just an omission, that your final eoat

is scratched. ~ - “ \

-Mr. Capuano: Our final coat is scratched? - :

Miss Thacker: Yes. _ a 23

Mr. Capuano: You are talking about ‘the plunfb coat?

‘ Miss Thacker:: In any application that you make. . -

Mr. Capuano: If the tile setter wants it scratched we -

scratch it, that’s right. | oe ar,

Miss Thacker: Your final coat is scratched, according

to the agreement.

Mr. Capuano:. If it’s Supposed to be scratched, yes.

_ Miss Thacker: The agreement says it’s to be scratched:.

[126] Mr. Capuano: ell, the decision doesn’t say it

has to be scratched. es a. AN

Miss Thacker: The 1917 says it has to be scratched. .

Mr. Capuano: . Look at the 1924 decision. _—

"Miss Thacker: It says scratched.

Mr. Capuano: No, it doesn’t.

* 7 . * * . as * * *

[127] Mr. Power: Mr. Hearing Officer, if we may, we

certainly have no objections to using the words that we

have to scratch the plumb coat.

Miss Thacker: Allright. . |

Mr. Power: But being practical, being in the business,

myself, many times a tile setter will say don’t scratch it.

_ It’s in the agreement to be scratched for his setting bed,

but many times they will tell you not to scratch it.

* * * * * * =. * +* .

[128] GEORGE LONGSHORE

was called as a witness by and on behalf of the Plasterers

and, having been first duly sworn, was examined and

testified as follows: - Y a

* * - _ * & * .# +. * *

. 3 4 -

[129] * Direct Examination

Q. Did you learff that tile setters were performing

work that you as a plasterer considered to be within your

jurisdiction? A. Yes, sir. |

Q. When did you learn that, approximately? A. Oh,

I wouldn’t know just x, Mr. Capuano, what the ex-

act date was.

Q. Well, was it in the summer ‘or fall of 66? A. Oh,

no, it was definitely in the fall of the year.

Q. Fall of:’66? <A. Yes, sir.

Q. All right.

[130] And after you learned this what did you do, who

did you talk to? A. I contacted the Tile Setters’ busi-

ness agent. ,

Q. All right. And what did you do next? A. And we

met on the job.

Q. You met with the Tile Setters’ business agents? A.

— Yes, sir.

Q. Anyone else? A. And Mr. Tom Zambon.

Q. All right.

And at that time did you make a claim for this work?

A. Yes, sir...

Q. And did Mr. Zambon mks any reply to you when

you told him this was your work? A. Well, only to what

Mr. Zambon’s testimony here was correct. _ |

Q. What did he say? . A. That the work belonged. to

him. and he was going to do the work regardless of when

_. . the tile was set.

Q. All right.

- And after this were there any other meetings held on

_. the job site? A. Doug and I met out on. this job a couple

* cinity of this meeting. .

>»

of times.

Q. Doug who? A. The Lathers—the Tile Setters’ bis

ness agent. i

[131]. Q. Over this same thing? A. Yes, s si, :

_Q. And— A. And then at a later date I met out there

with out International representative, Mr. B. F. McCullen, |

and myself and Brother Doug, International Representa-

tive Joe Marsak, and at that particular time the super-

intendent ‘of the building, I don’t believe that Mr. Webb ©

took any part in the conversation that was between the -

two International Representatives and the two Business

Agent Representatives, but Mr. Webb was in the » vi-

Q. All right. ~

And did that. -meeting = this problem? A. No,

sir.

Q. All right. And tet that what did you do? AL

filed 4 Complaint and went through the regular procedures

~—and filed a Complaint-with the Board for the Settlement a

of Jurisdictional Disputes.

Q. The Joint Board? A. The Joint Board, yes, sir.

Q. All right.

Now, when you filed the Gompleint did you ‘file ‘the .

Complaint with your ‘International Union? A. Oh, yes, |

sir.

Q. And then they processed it for you, is that correct?

[182] A. Yes, sir.

Q. Through the Joint Board? A. Yes, sir. |

Q. Now, when you filed your Complaint with your In-

ternational Union what name did you give to this job?

A. . Through an error of the Plasterers foreman on that

job, that is where the science building and this library

was a mix-up, I asked the Plasterers foreman’ on tKis

particular job what was the name of the building; and he

was working prior to this across the street, and through

a fault of his he said the science building, or through a

seamless i a

. misunderstanding of mine, .we did call this library the

science building.

- Q. But you were referring to the library? A. Yes, we

were both referring to the library, yes, ‘sir.

| Q. Now, when you. got the decision of the Joint Board,

, and I assume you did get a copy of it. A. Yes,-sir. 7

_ Q. I believe that is right in front of you as Plasterers’

Exhibit 3, is it? A. Yes, sir. |

Q. That is the decision of November 10th, 1966. A.

Yes, sir.

~ Q. What. did you jdo then? A. ‘Wel, I got hold of,

probably went first dut on the job and talked to Tom.

[183] Q. Tom who? .A. Mr. Zambon. And as ‘Tom

’ says, they don’t abide by the Joint Board decisions. And

then I got hold of Doug, and I think it was about this

time that we were talking about: an agreement that ex-

‘isted that I didn’t have a copy of. And I believe this is

about this date. We went over to Mr. Zambon’s office,

and I don’t recall the correct address’ of it, but Mr. Zam-

_bon wasn’t in at this partieular time, and that is the only

time that I have ever been to their office.

- Q. All right.

Did you ask Mr. McHargue to do anything after | you

, got this Joint Board decision? A. Oh, yes.

_ Q. What did you ask him to do? A. Well, I asked Mr.

' McHargue would he abide by. the Joint Board decision. _

_- Q. And what ‘did he say? A: And he informed me —--

that he could not abide- by- the Joint Board decision.

Q. O.K.

Now, did you notify. your International Union as to the

Tile Setters’ answer, that.they wouldn’t comply with the

Joint Board decision? A. Well, I think that. after I

- talked-te- Brother Doug and Tom Zambon, and they in-

formed me that they couldn’t abide by [134] the Joint

Board decision, I also talked to Mr. Webb about this. —

’ Then I imagine the next day I put the picket on the job.

Q. On January of ’*67— A. After the decision was

handed from the Joint Board. 4

aD aT SUE Taclaie. baw o ocdehd dank he ald a elnten se lA ed is

was called as a witness by and on behalf of Martini Tile

“Martini Tile and Terrazzo Company, Please? A. I am

' stallation at Rainbo Baking Company? A. Yes.

_ this work to be done? A. To the Tile Setters. ®

them? <A. Yes,

the National Joint Board? A. No.

| No.

[155] Association? A. Yes.

No.

@Q. You mean after they told. you—you say they couldn't

comply with the— A..Comply with the Joint Board de- —_

‘cision. And after the Joint Bodrd rendered its decision

and then I couldn’t come.to any agreement ‘with Brother

Doug or with Tom. Zambon, then I did put the picket on °

the job. | | | |

Sa * * a . * * * * *

[152] 7 ADOLPH N. MARTINI.

and Terrazzo Company, and having been first duly sworn,

was examined and testified as follows: ; a

* * * * * ' * * * | *

Direct Examination .

Q. (By Miss Thacker) What i is your position with the

president.

Q. Did you have a direct contract for certain tile in-

Q. To whom did you make the’ work assignment for. -

Q. Do you have a collective bargaining nexeanent with

“&t * _ & ae * * . * # : * *

£154] Q. In your contract with Rainbo are yen bound by

Q. Are you a member of the local Tile Contractors As- |

sociation? A. Yes.

Q. Are they bound by the National Joint Board?. A.

Q. Are you a member of the National Tile Contractors |

Q. Are they bound by the National Joint Board? - A.

* * * * * * #. * * +

i. re

[156] . Hearing Officer: So let, me read that over and ;

see if we can get a: stipulation as to that being the words:’

“Plasterers Local No. 79 protests sub-standard condi-

tions, Martini Tile Company, Incorporated. Local Union oe

79 does not-intend by this picket line to induce or encour-: .

age the employees of ,any other employer to engage in a i

strike or a. concerted refusal to work.”

[157] Do you stipulate that that is what the sign said?

' Mr. Capuane: - Yes. ——

. ° * * *~ * * * * - _ 7

—— [159] Q. And: when did your men go back on the job?”

_A. They went back the following week-end because Rainbo |

| 'was tied up during the week. See; this is a remodel job

8 and we had those people ‘shut down for a while, and we

a couldn’t work in the daytime, it had to be done in the

a latter part of the week when they could shut down a cer-

-\. | tain portion of their equipment, and we had to get in there

and get out of it.

Q. Then when did you start the job hick up again, Mr.

IN Y Martini? [160]- A. We started the tile up the following”

Friday. .

. Q. The following Friday?. A. Yes.

Q. So then it was from March 17 when the picket was”

initially put up and then you started up. the following —

Friday. A. That’s right. _

Q. And you completed it. Or is there more work that

_ -you have to be done on that particular job, or are you

~eompleted with it?> A. No, no, there is quite a bit of

~ work that is going up there, and they are putting tile

wainscoting from the floor to the ceiling, which is about

. twelve feet high, and we have to do it just at times when

. _ the spaces are available, that’they can turn over to us, but

they are going to’ tile the entire building before it’s over

with. , oa

* _ + . * £#* * *. a oe *

. 67

Hearing Officer: y think, so that the — will be,

clear, I think maybe we ought to define the work that was

- ~~ being’ done by the tile setters at the time Mr. Longshore

came to you. "

Now, just briefly. Ron’t go.into too much detail.

Thé Witness: ‘a might explain it in this manner,

that,this is a remod g job, and they have painted brick

- . walls in there, and some of the paint is very heavy on

there, [161] and rather than to chip the paint off and

create a lot of dust hazard, and one thing and another, in

the bakery, we elected to nail metal lath over the brick

wall¢ with concrete nails, and following that we put our

‘setting bed on there, which was approximately a half inch

thick. And then in floating those large walls up we had

alot .of. equipment | to work around, and we. had to go 2

from the 'fif6 to the ceiling. In order to get-a straight ~

line, to strike our lines on the walls, to keep the walls

_ Straight, we used on top of the lath, we used: wood lath

strips that we float our: mortar on in a conventional ‘man-

ner to form our setting bed. :

‘Then when the Rainbo people would let us go back in’

. there sometime the following day, sometimes a little bit

later, we would set our tile on our setting -bed. Some- |

times we could do it the same day. Sometimes we couldn’t.

Hearing Officer: This setting bed you are talking about _

is what you believe Mr. Longshore was. referring to when -

he asked you to give this work to the Plasterers, is that

correct ?.

The Witness: Yes, that i is correct:

. [167] Hearing Officer: : I think he described the process

as having a painted brick wall and nailing some metal

lath onto it and putting the setting bed onto the metal

lath... Now, you may not use that in your terminology, but

I think you understand what I mean. Is this the work

that the plasterers would claim as their work?

» 3

int aA ak gt ake oP at! ae ae ee dak OP een FE Te Se te et ee

| [168] Mr. Capuano: If the tile was not installed-on the

same day, yes.

Hearing Officer: 4h, other words, if it were not wet?

Mr. Capuano: Right, if it were allowed to harden and ~

he came back another day and put tile on that coat of

rhortar with this L.&M. that he is talking about, we would

_claim that coat of mortar.

_ Hearing Officer: All right. Now, is this ‘setting bed,

. is this work that is claimed by the Tile. Setters?

Miss Thacker: Yes.’ -

Hearing Officer: 0.K.

* 7 «8 * * * . - *— * * *

Cross” Examination

~ Q. (By Mr. Shepherd) Mr. Martini," you said this meet-

ing was held in the office of the Plasterers Union on the -

20th? And. when djd the pickets go“tip on this job? : As

That was onthe 17th ~—s-

Q. 17th. How‘long were the pickets a9? A. Oh, they

were gone by noon out there. a

Mr. Longshore: Three hours.

A. After we pulled our men off the j gb they had no-

body to picket.

‘Q. (By Mr. Shepherd) Well, I mean, your men stopped

~ because of the pickets, becafise of the great number of

other [169] union men that were employed gn the plant.

-A. That’s right, we pulled our men off because we didn’t ,

a want to embarrass our client out there, Rainbo Bakery.

* +. @ * e ~ .@ — ee) *-

: @&

[173] _ HENRY BERTOLINI _

was called as a witness by and on behalf of the Tile Set-

- ters and, having been first duly sworn, was examined and

testified-as follows:

. af

Sos boon Sas

‘wee

(1747: : . Direct Examination ; ® yh

Q. ( By Miss Thacker) Mr. Bertolini, what company =

are you with? A. The Bertolini Brothers Company. .

-Q. Is that in Youngstown, Ohio? A. Yes. ;

Q. And what is your position? A. President.

* * * * * * * * : a

[175]. A. Two brothers, two other brothers and ‘myself. -

Q. Are. you active in the National Association? A.

~ Yes; I am Viee President of the Tile Contractors Associa-

tion of: America. _ pF

.Q. And haye you held other p sitios there? - A. Yes,

I have been a Regional Director for about four years.

This is my second year as Vice President. I also serve as

- technical committee chairman. : :

Q. Aré you connected with C.S.I., that i is— A. Yes, I

ama professional member. of Construction Specification —

‘ Institute. I am.also a member of the American Society

for Testing Materials.

* - ‘* ._ * . . * * * * * *

[179] ~ Q. (By Miss Thacker) Now, Mr: Bertolini, will

you identify the National- Agreement of the Setters and

briefly. what it covers. [180] . A.°Well,. the National .

Agreement, T-2, is between the Tile Contractors Associa-

_ tion.of America and B.M, & P.I.U. of America. This

agreement is between our association and the Bricklayers

to set out what constitutes the work that belongs ‘to the

ment, the days that it. was in session, what the Tile Lay-

ers’ work is to be defined as, what the parties agree to as"

far as workmanship of, I ‘am sorry, the aoanty of the

workmanship.

_ It defines methods of apprenticeship. It defines what

working hours will constitute shift time: |

It defines the method of bargaining at the lower level.

It defines methods of arriving at, not arriving at, I am

sorry, of setting arbitrations between member signatures

of this agreement. _ y,

”.

“ eraft known as the Tile Setters. It sets out the agree-

Q. Does it recognize the National Joint Board? A. It

— does not.

. Ne * * * =) e * * > # . © oes

[181] Q. (By Miss Thacker) Mr. Bertolini, are Martini

Tile and Terrazzo and Texas State Tile & Terrazzo mem-

bers of the National Association? A. Yes.

Q. .So they are bound by this National Agreement. which

. you have in your hands?’ A They are bound by the Na-

tional Agreement. ;

#* e* * e * # * + * *

_ [183] Q. (By Miss Thacker) Now, Mr. Bertolini, have ©

~ you observed [184] the laying of tile over a period of

years, have you: seen the craft at work and you have —

observed it? A. Yes.

_Q. Closely over a period of years? How long? A.

+ Since 1939.

Q. Is this a daily observation or a~ weekly observation

or what is the frequency? A. Beginning from 1989 it

_was daily. And as the years progressed and I became an

officer in the company, it diminished to probably two or

. three times a week. |

Q. Now, do you have occasion in your capacity now and

from the time that you came into the company to observe |

the plasterers at work?: A. Yes.

Q. About the same, with the same frequency? A. Yes.

_ Q. So that you feel that you would be acquainted with

the work of both crafts? A. I would say yes.

Q. Are you familiar with the various methods of setting

tile?’ A. Iam..

Q. Would you describe to us the conventional method?" |

A. The conventional method is generally accepted to be |

- three coats of mortar installed over a metal lath back-up —

[185] which has been scratched and if necessary plumbed ©

by the plasterers. Both scratch coat and plumb coat are

to be scratched. The tile setter then installs his final

setting bed onto which the tile are installed. | “

_Q. Now, are you familiar with the 1917 agreement be-

tween O.P. and C.M.I.A. and B.M. & P.I.A.? A; I have

- read it. .

_- Miss Thacker: May I offer this in evidence at this

point, Mr. Hearing Officer? ar, _

Hearing Officer: It will be marked as T-4,

. Miss Thacker: Please. ,

Hearing Officer: Would you mark this as T-4, please?

. (The. document above-referred to was marked Texas.

State’s Exhibit No. 4 for identification.). ° :

_ Q. (By Miss Thacker) Now, this was an agreement be-

tween the two unions? A. Correct.

Q. Do you know— 7 ;

Mr. Capuano: What are you reading? .

Miss Thacker:. The 1917 agreement, page thirty-two. _

‘Hearing Officer: Why don’t we get him to identify this -

book first to have the record clear: What is this T-4 you

have in your hand?

‘The Witness: T-4 is a plan for settling jurisdictional

disputes nationally and locally, and it’s approved by: the

Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO,

[186] agreements and decisions rendered affecting the

building industry by the AFL, the Building Trades De-

partment, AFL-CIO, the National Board for Jurisdictional

Awards. - - .

Hearing Officer: O-K., that is enough. Are you famil-

iar with this book? .

The Witness: I am familiar with the parts that per-

tain to the B.M. & P.I.U. Se a :

Hearing Officer: You have occasion to utilize these

parts of the book? » |

The Witness: Yes. _

-Hearing Officer: O.K.

You may go ahead, Miss Thacker. | .

Q. (By Miss Thacker) All right. Now, this agreement

is specifically between the two unions, is that right? A.

This particular one, yes. _ —

«62

Hearing Officer: What agreement are you talking 7

about?

The Witness: ~- I am talking about.the agreement—oh,,

I am sorry. |

Miss Thacker: “It’s on page thirty-two, Preparation of

Walls and Ceilings to Receive Title.

Q.- (By Miss Thacker) Do.you know of any agreement

_. between the two unions that has been made since this

1917 agreement? A. I believe one in 1924..

Q. That is over here on page 104. A. 104.

[187] Q. Now, this is where they reaffirmed it. Now,

this applies to the conventional method that you have just

deseribed— ~ «

Mr. Capuano: I am going to object, now. If he is an”

| expert witness let him testify. Miss Thacker insists upon

putting in her own comments and in effect testifying.

Hearing Officer: Sustained. Please don’t — the wit-

ness.

Q. (By Miss Thacker) ° Now, this aoreauant of 1917,

does this pertain to the method, or what method does it

pertain to? A. This agreement pertains to the method,

* to the conventional mortar method, commonly called in the

trade as the mud method, which says that the plasterers

do have the right to plumb, rod and square all walls and

scratch same so as to guarantee adhesion of the final coal

which shall be putyon by the tile layers to act as a bed

for his tile.

It further states that the same is applicable to all ceil-

ings, that again that it shall be leveled and rodded and

properly scratched so as to guarantee adhesiveness of the

final coat which is to be applied by: the tile setter and

act as a bed for his tile.

Q. Now, is there anything different shown in the Feb-

ruary 21, 1924 decision on page 104? A. I believe that it

just confirms it, or reaffirms it. -

_ [188] Q. Reaffirms it. All right.

Now, that has to do with the conventional method. Now,

would you describe for. us, please, the one coat or float *

‘ * . ¢

Alia arr dotaes stun dtom casaie Cabo

a enn

en:

coat method? A. The one coat method is an abbreviation. -

of the conventional mortar method, was devised for almost

_ a specific purpose, of installing tile. in remodeling work _

over back-up that was already in place.. Having a back-up

_ there which could: be either britk, block, sheetrock, plaster,

plastic tile. As long as there was a back-up there you

. applied expanded metal lath to this back-up. And in one

procedure you installed a final setting bed for the ceramic.

tile onto which was installed, or which is installed the

ceramic tile. This entire procedure is known as the one

coat method. Normally in a bathroom:a.tile setter will go

in and do this whole procedure in a residential bathroom

in one day. . 24 |

t . :

* * + ‘* * * * * * *

[193] Q: (By Miss Thacker) Now, Mr. Bertolini, would

you describe to us the thin set method? A. The thin set .

method is a method of installing ceramic tile over back-up -

walls with a ‘bond coat. This can be a so-called dry set

Mortar. It can be an organic adhesive. It can be a”

epoxy. It can be a_ polyester formulation. But gener-

ally it is in those four broad classifications. .

You use this material to attach tile to a Surface pre-

_ pared by others. , .

Q. This bonding agent that you: have just. described,

these various things that it maybe; can that in any sense

be referred to or called a setting ‘bed? A. We do not

call it the setting bed because it in no way can determine

the method or the finished appearance of the tile. I mean,

I am sorry, it does affect the finished appearance of the

tile, but since it is not under the control of the tile setter

Wwe cannot call the back-up: wall the setting bed, so the ad-

hesive line, the glue line, as some people call it in a der-

ogatory mood, is used to adhere the tile to the back-up

wall. J a a

Q. Now, is there any difference in the guarantee which

you as a tile contractor can give on the convéhtional

method, [ 194] the one cost, float coat method, and the thin

6A’

set method. A. In the conventional method the tile setter

and the tile contractor insta]] the tile setting bed, whiclr

controls the finish line of the tile. Therefore, he must

assume the responsibility of the finished appearance of

the tilé wall. When the tile contractor and his tile setter

install the one coat method he also controls the setting

bed of the tile and therefore must assume responsibility..

In the dry set method, or the thin bed setting method—

Hearing Officer: That is the same method?

The Witness: Yes. In the trade there’s three, you can

call it the dry set method, the thin set, some call it the

‘thin bed.

Hearing Officer: It’s all the : same thing?

The Witness: It’s all the same thing.

Hearing Officer: Go ahead.

A. It’s the way that someone has got the _ out. It

probably more properly is the thin set method. Now, the

thin set, since you are installing, tile over walls prepared

-by others, over: which the tile contractor-or, the tile setter

have no control, the tile setters through their union. and

the tile contractor being the employer, cannot assume the

_ finished, the responsibility of the finished work of the tile

because with the thin line of adhesive or a thin line of

dry set mortar, the tile must, within certain minute [195]

corrections which are possible, must follow the wall that

_ is there. And therefore he cannot assume the responsi-

bility for the quality of the work.

Q. (By Miss Thacker) Now, then, insofar as the bond-

ing agents are concerned, with the advent of the organic

and inorganic, has it made a difference in the setting of |

tile, any material difference? A. Well, the advent of dry

set mortar has allowed tile to be installed in many in-

stances where ceramic tile was not use before because

by using the thin set method it was very easy to install

tile over masonry walls in either Haytite block or cement

block without the use of any other preparatory methods.

And therefore, the architect could achieve a finished wall

resembling a conventional mortar method in appearance,

3 . .

“8

but the finished appearance was not always as nice as

the conventional method, but because of the savings in

cost he accepted that. —

So a title contractor was able to figure walls where we |

weren’t able to figure before. - ,

Also in remodeling it. was’ possible in the thin set

method to install tile using an organic adhesive over

finished gypsum plaster-that maybe had been -in for years

before and the home: owner had’ just decided he could

afford the money to put tile in and the contractor applied

_ tile with this organic adhesive ‘over finished plaster.

{196] Let’s see, continuing, the other advantage of the

invention of dry set, mortar-has been to allow the contrac-

tor the option of when installing tile in the conventional

mortar method, .because of the temperature or because of |

job. conditions, to allow him to float his final setting bed

and not necessarily cover that final setting bed while the =

bed was still plastic or wet, but allowed him to come back

the next day and install the tile and stil] be assured of a

bond equal to or better than he would have had the day

previous. on ;

_ There are time because of temperature that the final

setting bed starts receiving its initial set before the tile

can be properly adhered with a neat cement bond or neat

cement or bond coat. And therefore the tile contractor

through his tile setter defers putting the tile up but pre-

fers to wait until the next day and set the tile using, --

again, either dry set mortar or a neat portland cement:

: coat. Co |

If on metal lath, more often than not, metal studs, be-

cause of the flexibility of the metal lath and the fact that

-a tile setter must beat his tile into the wall, the vibra-

tions which occur would defeat the bond between the final

setting bed and the scratch coat or the plumb coat that

has been previously applied, he defers again the setting of

the tile until the next day when his setting bed has firmed

up enough that he can then apply the tile without dis-

turbing his lines. _—

197] ‘And, of course, job conditions would be to allow a

tile setter to put up his final setting bed in areas where

‘ there is other traffic, where there is incovenience, and

therefore he puts up his setting bed one day, comes back

at a later time, even in the evening, or the following

morning, and puts his tile up.

- In the use of ceilings, it is extremely difficult to install

., tile in a wet mortar, and has been generally the custom

of the trade to float his tile setting bed one day, either

late in the afternaan, and come back the next day and

prior to the advent of dry set mortar, install his tile with

a neat cement coat: ,

‘With the use of heavy tile, such 4 quarry tile, hand-

made faience tile, which is a relatively thick, heavy body,

laid: in the wet method ‘because of the weight of ‘the tile,

it is extremely difficult to put tile on a wet setting bed,

and again if it was on a metal lath where he even had

to beat it, there were two reasons for him to withhold it,

and it has been the custom of the trade for many years

when installing heavy faience tile wainscoting or quarry

wainscating-to float out the final setting bed for the tile

and come back the next day and set the tile with a neat

cement coat, not dry set mortar or adhesive, but use-a

neat cement coat.

* * es * * * * + - 4 *

[203] Hearing Officer: Well, then you will stipulate

that these are the specifications with Rainbo Bakery? |

Mr. Capuano: If Miss Thacker tells me that is all

there is, I will take her- word and stipulate to it.

* * * * * * * * * *

[221] Q. (By Miss Thacker) Are you familiar, or

rather do the apprentices learn to put on a float coat? .

A. Yes. |

Q.. What per cent of their time, of their total’ time, as

apprentices is spent in learning to do this? A. The

major. portion. It would be probably difficult to say: the

percentage unless you include the procedures that lead

ai ha alae Be

AT a ee a ee Ct ee

iar SRE ekeetoiekibln tina” nea LE MINS Sha tbe! $06 od

~ 67

up to the installation of the float coat, which start with

learning the prdper mixes for the different type of ‘instal-

lations, how these mixes are to be made, how they are

applied to the wall with a hawk and a trowel, the prepar- |

ation necessary to plumb, rod and square a wall, the use

of float strips, as we ‘call them, or lattice strips, screed

Strips, they are all three the same, the use of a level, the

_ use of a square, the-use of the hawk and trowel, all ‘per-.

tain to-applying mortar to a wall.

This is a major portion of a tile setter’s apprenticeship

program because this is the part that—I can’t think of

the word—which rules the finished appearance of the

wall. | - .

Now, also, of course, the apprenticeship covers the

[222] same thing in floors, so what percentage I couldn’t

really say,’ but maybe forty per cent of his time.

Q. How long does he generally spend in learning to ap-

| ply the adhesives or the bonding agent? A. A compara-

tively relatively short time. The apprenticeship program

covers about four years of time, and in this four years

he learns all of these different trades, sometimes, work-

ing at a different portion of it. for three or four months.

The thin-set method is learned about the last three months

of his apprenticeship: since it should be learned after he

has learned how to plumb, rod and square a wall, because

there are applications when this is required and he must

apply the tile in a thin-set method over these walls, but

a’ majority of the time these are applied over other sur-

faces, and therefore the skill is ‘much less,

* * * * * * * * * ° *

[224] Q. (By Miss Thacker) Now, in the 1917 agree-

ment it says that the plasterers are to scratch, plumb, .rod

: and square so as to guarantee adMesion of the final coat.

Why.is this necessary, Mr. Bertolini? A. For the reason:

mentioned, that unless the plumb coat is scratched you

cannot guarantee the adhesion of the final setting bed.

. Q. What would happen? A. You would not achieve

«&

proper bond and. yout is possible to get a delamina-

, ; i en :

Re PR PE oe

ps RSE NPN on wre 7 a

iton or what is a separation of the final setting bed and

the plumb coat, and therefore you would have a faulty

installation. ' |

os a} * * a * * * * *

[225] Q. Now, doés the March ’67 clarification of the

Joint Board specify that the plasterers are to seratch the 3

final coat— A. No.

Q. —that they apply? A. No.

Q. If this final coat that the plasterers apply is not

scratched can the tile setters proceed with their float

coat? A. They can, although it is not in the best inter-

ests of. the job to proceed because you are not guarantee-

ing adhesion by keying in with the plumb coat. The tile,

the final setting bed of the tile setter can adhere to a

/plumb coat that is not scratched, but to insure that it is

going to key in and bond properly, it has always been

the requirement that the plumb coat be scratched.

Q. Now, if this coat, the final coat, that the plasterers

apply is scratched, can there be a thin set? A. No, be»

cause of the surface of the scratched surface, [226] the

surface of the scratch is'so irregular and roufh and gritty

that applying an organic adhesive would be futile. An

epoxy would be the same. A dry-set mortar could pos-

sibly be done if you were to again treat the wall, but

again the grittiness and the rough texture would preclude

a proper finished appearance to the tile wall. . |

Q. Can you- acgpu unt for any reason that the. term

scratch is suddenly eliminated -in this clarification when

it is in the agreement between the two unions?

Mr. Capuano: Well, now—

A. I cannot. sas

* 2 * 2 _@ * * 2 * @

[227] Q. (By Miss Thacker) “All right. The initial

. agreement between the two unions, the 1917 agreement,

says that the final coat. applied by the plasterers is

scratched. [228] A. Correct.

—e

Q. Now, in the clarification, March ’67. clarification by

the Joint Board, this is not an agreement between the two

unions but a clarification, but it refers to the 1917 agree-

“Ment, and the term scratch is deleted as to their final «

coat. oe ;

Now, I am saying with the deletion of this word .

~ seratch is it feasible from a construction standpoint, for

_a tile setter, then, to apply his float coat if it’s a con- |

ventional method—A. No. .

Q. —or the thin-set? A. If it’s a conyentional method,

no. .If it would be the thin-set bed, yes. o :

Q. All right. - ;

Then there would be, if it were thin-set, then who

would be putting on the setting bed? A. The’ plasterers.

- Q. And why? A. Because they are installing a back-

up wall with a finished surface over which a one-eighth

inch or maybe even as thin as one-sixteenth of an inch

bond coat of dry-set, organic-adhesive, can be applied. —

Q. Now, according to the 1917 agreement, where it

-gays that the plasterers shall plumb, rod and .square, is

this a [229] final or a preliminary plumb, rod and

square? A. This has never been the final setting bed. The

plumbing and rodding and squaring of thé wall prior to

receiving the final setting bed has been the work of the

. , Plasterer, but it has been scratched in order to guarantee

' the adhesion of the final setting bed. This is not the

coat on which the tile are bonded.

Q. All right. - |

Now, in the March ’67 clarification, we have a clause

which says that if it’s set during. the same work day in.

which this’ is, and ‘this is in quotes, “set during the same

’ work day in which ‘such coat is applied the plaster ma-

terials shall be applied by tile setters in the interest. of

effftient job operation.” : ,

Now, let’s look at this particular terminology, Mr. Ber-

tolini. Is it always feasible: for 2 tile contractor to set

tile the same day it’s floated, the wall is floated? A.

— :

70 oy

There was never any ruling, there was riever any mention

° in the agreement— -

Co,

Mr. Capuano: Now, I am. going to objact. She asked

hima simple question, is it feasible to do this. Now, we

are getting what is in the agreement.

Hearing Officer:* Try to be responsive’ to the ‘question.

Did you understand the questiof that she asked? She |

_ wants to know about feasjbilit

[2301 Mr, Capuano: The feasibility of setting tile the

same ‘day while the mortar coat was wet, is it feasible?

‘ The .Wifness: Oh, yes.

Mr. Capuano: That is all that w9s jhvolvell

Hearing Officer: O.K. Go ahead.

Q. (By Miss Thacker) Is it alwiys feasible? That

_. Was my question. A. No.

Q. Why? -A. Because-of igb conditions, because of .

_ time of the year which involves temperature, winter,

summer, heat and cold, type of tile to be installed, dnd the

area to which the tile are to be instgHed, would govern |

whether the tile could be properly dhered to thy final

setting bed on the same day:

* . : + + * * * a * (4% te

Q. Generally does a tile contractor like to float out his”

entire work—

Hearing Officer: I. am going to—

Q. (By Miss Thacker) —first“from the Banapouie of |

job efficiency?

* _ ££ * o * * * * * o-

[231] A. Yes...

\Q. (By Miss Thacker) Why?. A. Because he can

| 5 the amount of Sperations that a tile setter must -

| in $ne day. Rather than go through the entire pro-

cedure of floating, bonding ‘and installing tile and clean-

ing down the tile wall~he would, in “td

and cut the cost of the finished’ product, install his ‘tile

setting bed in a. large area. continuously _ throughout

(232) the day with the erriee sate of coming back

er to gxpedite

\¢

tile,

7 ee ant,

. _ P ; Dy - .

the following day and covering that area with ceramic

Q. Now, you as a tile contractor who has been in busi-

ness Many years, would you be willing to submit.to some

rule or regulation which told you when you were to set-

your tile? ‘A. No. 2 ®

. \

Q. Do you feel ‘that that-is your prerogative as to:

when you set it, whether you set it today ar next month?

A. Yes. er ee

Miss Thacker: I believe that is all; Mr. Hearing Officer.

Oh, wait just a minute. > |

- Two more questions, Mr. Hearing Officer, plédse. ’

Hearing Officer: Go ahead. oe

Q. (By Miss Thacker) When the tile setter installs his -

float coat does he at that time establish the. finished

dimensions? A. That is one of the criteria. -

.. ' Q. At the time when the plasterer puts on his final

coat are these finished—and completed dimensions the -

same?. A. No. .-.. Oo

Q.. His‘ is prelimiwary) then, I mean, the plasterer? A. °

Being a—may I elaborate?

Hearing Officer: Sure, go ahead. I think it calls for it.

[233] A. Being that the plasterer is installing the

plumb coat only, he would have no way of knowing what

the final dimension requirements are, what ‘dimensions |

must* be met by the finished tile, since the setting bed.

regulates. not only the final dimension but the appear- |

ance of the tile, the plumbness, trueness of ling, cofrect-

""néss of pattern.

Q.. (By Miss Thacker) Now, as an employer, as a tile |

contractor, do you have a preference as to work ‘assign-

ment to any one craft? A. Yes. . ;

Q. Which one? A. We have, as an employer, assigned

the scratching of the*lath and: the plumbing and rodding

_ and scratching of the plumb coat to the plasterers and we

have a@igned the installation of the final setting bed

and the bond coat and the tile to the tile setters.

. 7

a -d ‘ PS FN I NOLES NAS NETGEAR A HAS PR

petri er Rap mer me fa

72 :

[284] Cross Examination

* * * * * * * * * *

[254] Q. O.K.

Now, would you get—do | you have a copy of the green

book there, T-4?

Would you look at page thirty-two, cleaze? A. I am.

Q. I believe you testified on direct that the 1917 agree-

of setting tile? A. Yes.

Q.: Now, could. you tell me if any place in that 1917

agreement it refers to the words conventional méthod of

setting tile? A. It does not.

_ Q. How about the agreement listed on page thirty-

_ three, [255] the agreement between the Interstate Mantel

and Tile Contractors Association and the two unions,

does that use the words conventional method any Binet

A. I have not read it but— '

“* * * * * * . * “* *

A. It does not specifically refer to the conventional.

mortar EELTOG. | —.

* * * * * * 2 _ *

[257] Q. Al right.

Look on page 104 of T-4, would you, please? A. Yes,

I looking at that.

See. the decision of February 21, 1924. Are the

words conventional method of setting tile used in that

decision? A. They are not.

Q. Now, do you as a tile contractor recognize this

1917 decision and 1924 decision? A. We generally have.

Q. You abide by it? A. Yes; we do.

Q. You assign your , work when you are doing it—

A. Yes.

Q. —like that, right? <A. Yea:

_ Q. Do you know approximately when dry-set mortars

came into being? <A. Early ’50s.

Q. Pardon me? A. In the early 1950's.

Part A ll

738

_ Q Would it refresh your recollection ‘if I said [258]

approximately fifty-five or fifty-six? A. No more than

that I just said because I am not positive as to the time

because it was developed actually in this area and mi-

grated throughout the country, and I can’t say just when

it really became a known product, such as dry-set mortar.

Q. O.K. ; : a ;

Now, going back to this T-4, what is the first thing

that the agreement says must be‘done to the wall?

Hearing Officer: Are you talking about the 1924

_ agreement?

Mr. Capuano: Nol am talking about the 1917 agree-

ment, page thirty-two of T-4. A. Well, it says here that,

“First, it is agreed—”. - te

Q. (By Mr. Capuano) No, I don’t want you to read

the whole thing. I just want you to tell me the first

thing that must be done to the wall under the agreement,

starting from the rough— A. “Shall prepare or plaster

the walls.” . .

Q. All. right. And what would that include? A. It

would include the plumbing, the rodding, the squaring

and the scratching of same.

Q. All right. And. then the tile setter would come and

he would have certain things to-do in this agreement or

under this agreement, right? [259] A. Yes, it says here

he would put on the final coat. _ .

_Q. It means he would put on the final setting -bed, is

that right? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And then the next thing would be the setting of his

‘tile, right? A. Onto the setting bed.

Q. Yes, onto the setting bed. A. Right:

Q. So we have got four of five. tasks outlined there,

right, setting the wall, plumbing, rodding, squaring.

A. Yes, some of those tasks are actually .done simul-

' taneously. | oy

* * * * * * * * * *

[260] Q. Let’s take’ a situation where the specifications

provide on a job that you have got a concrete block wall,

and the plasterers, or let’s leave out the plasterers, let’s

just say a coat of mortar is to be put over those walls to

plumb them, level them, square the room, and tile will be

Set with dry-set mortar. Follow me? A. I do.

[261] Q. In that situation isn’t the wall being plumbed,

the room being squared, the ‘tile being set?- A. If the

work is done by the tile setter, yes. ;

any. craft names. I simply said doesn’t the room have to

be plumbed, the wall, I mean the wall plumbed, leveled,

_ Say “have”, you see, if you said “should’— . |

Q. Don’t try tt— A. Iam sorry, but when you say

_ “have to be,” it probably should be, but whether it has to

the room squared, and the tile set? A. Well, when you

be is something else.

_ Q. The specifications provided that. So according to

the specifications these things have to be done, don’t they?

A. All right. Yes. |

Q.O0K. «| »

So now we have got certain tasks that have to be per-

formed, don’t we? A. Yes. All right.

Q. Certain functions that, have to be performed, re-

gardless of who does them, they have to be done, don’t

they? A. To get the tile on: the wall, yes.

Q. Right. . ; |

_ And the 1917 agreement provides certain functions

that have to be done, doésn’t it? A. Yes.

* * * “e * * 2 * * *

[263] Q. (By Mr, Capuano) O.K. Let’s take the Amer-

ican Standards Association. Do they recommend instal-

ling tile in the conventional method on a dry. bed? A.

Conventional method on a dry bed.

Q. Yes. <A. No.

Q. You are not answering my question. I didn’t use °

PRO GEE. TALON

Bi pe tr ae

[264] Did I understand you to say yesterday that in in-

stalling ceilings you put, again we will stick with ceramic

_ tile, glazed ceramic tile, that you install those on a dry

bed? A. Yes. — a .

Q. Is that a recommended procedure by the American

. Standards Association?. A. No.

_ Q. Do you know who-the American'Standards Associa-

tion is? A. Yes. : |

_ Q. Who is it, or what-is it? A. It isa group thatare «

responsible by procuring from related people and trades

- who set up a method or a specification for the installation

of that product. : oe

Q. The recommended specifications for the’ industry,

- aren’t they? They are the standards for the industry?

_ A. They are a standard. i

Q. For the industry? .A. Yes, they are a standard.

[265] Q. As a matter of fact, they make specifications

for the installation of tile in Portland cement mortars.

A. They do: . :

-Q. And personnel on the committee preparing the speei-

fications include representatives of your group, don’t

they? A. Oh, yes. |

Q. And it includes representatives of the Bricklayers,

~ ‘doesn’t it? A: It does.

* . * - « > * * * - & ao

[267] Q. Do you know whether in P-7 there are any pro-

- visions‘ for installing of quarry tile or whether—let me

cross that. Do you know whether P-7 recommends the in-

stallation of quarry tile on a dry bed?

. Let me Se this first— A. Do I know? Yes, I

do know.

Q. You do know. Does it recommend setting quarry

tile— A. No. | a

* - * * * * * * * *

[271] Q. (By Mr. Capuano) All right. I show you

what has been marked as Plasterers’ Exhibit No. 8 and

ask you if you can identify that. A. Yes, I ean.

* —_ —— , Hee? epseTwasees re ee ae GR aia en at apt eee oer ee

Biren ESN GE SE LEI IGE TEL OT MET TPT NIT IGE MORNE NA EEA BRITCAR! AE OC TRON EN TN & “ew

Q. Would you tell us what it is? A. It’s cormmonly

known as A 118.1, American Standard Specifications for

the installation of ceramic tile with dry-set Portland

cement mortar. ne |

* * * * * * * * *

[272] Q. Did you read it? (c). .

Does it refer to the dry-set mortar as the mortar

setting bed? A. It refers to it as a mortar bed.

_ Q. I am sorry, mortar bed, yes, you are right.

And that is talking about the dry-set mortar which is

going to be. used to install ‘the tile, isn’t it? A. It is.

Q: Now, let’s go over to page ten, Section 5-4.1. See

that, Application of Mortar? A. (a), did you say? |

Q. Yes. Well, that is what I want you to look at. A.

“Mortar bed to be minimum of one-sixteenth inch.” |

Q. What mortar bed are they talking about? What is”

that mortar bed composed of? A. Of dry-set mortar.

Q. Dry-set mortar. And you are going to put your tile

right on, there, is that right? A. Oh, yes. . . ;

., Q. And there will be dry tile used? A. Yes.

_Q. You can use a dry wall to put it on, correct? A.

You can. —_ a a |

‘Q. How about over on page twelve? They are talking

about floors there, I believe. I don’t want to mislead you.

[273] Do you see it? A. Thank you:

_ Q. See Section 5-5.1(b)?. A. Mortar bed.

Q. Mortar. bed. And they are talking about the dry-set

mortar again, aren’t they? A. They are. .

Q. Now, if you look, if you go back to page three, you -

see a Section E-2?. A. I do. |

Q. Requirements of Related Trades. ”

. _ Would you read (a) for us, please? To yourself. A. |

I have read it: | | Co

Q. It provides that certain work will be included in

.Other specifications or for other trades, doesn’t it, and

that it includes those specifications in Appendix A in the

back of the book, correct? A. It doesn’t necessarily say

other specifications. . |

717

quirements to be included iri Related Trades.

Q. All right. . . : a

- And do you see Section A-3 on page thirteen? What-is

_ Q. And read it over to yourself, will you, Please, quick- -

ly? A. I have read it. | |

Q. Down to about’ (d). Did you read that? A. All

right. :

Q. That provides, doesn’t it, that when you are going

to have a mortar back-up to tile for the installation of

tile installed with dry-set mortars that the scratch. coat

or brown coat installed by the plasterers, doesnt’ it? A.

It does. . | | | :

Q. And it provides for the brown coat of the plasterers _

to be plumb and Square, doesn’t it, plumb with Square

corners, in Section (c), Sub-Section (ce)? A. Correct.

Q. Referring you again to P-8: who will, what craft

- Will put on the mortar bed referred to on page five that

Q. I am going to tell it to you. I was just looking for -

it in my notes. A. O.K. |

— Q. That the dry-set mortars are not called setting beds

When the back-up is prepared by another craft. Do you

recall that? A. I think I do. :

_Q. All right. |

You disagree, then, with the American Standard Speci-

fications, don’t you? A. Ina way I kind of agree with

> 9

— a ee RE a RE si

¥ TRALEE EIR DETER GA EINE LILY

7 : —_ _ PROPEL ROM LATEST OD

PR PETIT TE LIL” OPT CS MT Base PETES

ea BRON LR _—

t | 78

~ them —_— they say it’s just -a. mortar bed. They don’ t

call it the final setting bed.

Q. All right, call it a mortar ‘bed. You just told me

that is what the tile is going to be installed in, isn’t it?

A. It is going to be installed into this, as you call it, the

mortar bed. Wo do not call it such.

Q. The American Standard Specifications refer to it

_as the mortar bed? . A.- Correct.

_Q. Doesn’t it? A. Yes, it does. - .

* Q. And the American Standard Specifications, P-7. and

8, [276] don’t’ differentiate in the terminology of that bed

regarding which craft puts on the ‘back-up for it, does it?

A. It does not.

* + * * * * * * * *

[280] Q. (By Mr. Capuano) Mr. Witness, we were |

talking before the break about a crooked door buck. Do

“you recall that? A. Yes, I do.

’ Q. You have had time to think about it now. A. Yes.

Q. Where your tile, you may have only half. a tile at |

the bottom of the door frame, but because the door frame

is crooked you have got three-quarters of a title at the

top. De you recall the situation? A. Yes, very defi*

nitely.

Q. The door frame would not look good, would it? A.

It would not.

Q. Your tile would look crooked where it butted up

' against the door frame, wouldn't it? A. The cut would

be out of plumb.

-Q. You could see it, too, couldn’t you, the difference

between the half and the three-quarters? <A. Yes.

Q. Your tile setters don’t claim the installation of the.

door buck, do they? A. They do not.

Q. Now, you have installed ‘tile warecoung, hayen’t —

you? [281] A. Yes.

Q. And where above the tile is going to go some other

material, for example, plaster. A. Yes.

Q. What, otfiér materials could go above the wainacth-

-‘ing? Marble? ‘Would you have marble above it? A. Not

. generally.

“19,

Q. Not generally. All right. What are some other ma-

terials?’ A. Cement block. . 2

Q. Cement block. All right. Let’s stick with the plas-

ter. You have got a situation where you have got tile

wainscoting, plaster above it. You would generally have

a casing bead between the tile and: the plaster above it,

wouldn’t you? A. No. - Ao

Q. You say you would not? A. No, not generally.

Q. Not generally. All right. You have had casing _

beads separating the tile from the plaster, haven’t you?

A. We have. | | - at

Q. If the casing bead is crooked and the plaster runs —

down to the casing head and your tile runs up to the

casing bead, you are going to havé small cut tiles on one ~

end, larger tiles on the other’ other end, aren’t you? A.

This casing bead,-now, runs horizontally? |

'Q. Horizontally, yes, that’s right, horizontally. {282]

A. And we are going to have cuts where, Mr. Capuano?

_Q. Well, at one end of the casing bead that is lower

than the other end you may have a full tile at the low

end and at the higher end you will havé to have pieces of

tile. A. Why? : oO :

Q. If the casing bead is running at an angle, not

‘straight, horizontally. A. You are presupposing some-

thing that I don’t assume, and that is that we would

cover the casing bead. a | "=

Q. I am not telling you you are covering it. I am say-

ing you are going to run up to it. A. Oh, I am sorry.

In other -words, you are going to install the ceramic‘tile -

flush with the finished wall of the plaster.

Q. Yes, and you are running up to the easing bead and

the casing bead is not, Say, level. It goes on an angle in-

stead of being level in a horizontal plane. A. Well, if

tile had to be installed in that instance the cut on the

top of the tile would be out of level. te,

Q. You could see it, couldn’t you, if it was out of level

enough? <A. Yes, you would. —

Q. Who installs the casing beads generally, nal craft?

A. If it’s a metal casing bead I would assume vs the

lather.”

Q. Do you — if the tile setters claim the installa-

tion [283] of the casing bead where they are running

tile up to it? A. No ~

Q. No, they don’t? A. They do not’ claim it.

* * * * * * * * , * *

[284] Q. (By Mr. Capuano) Now, if I understand your

testimony correctly, you as a tile contractor would guar-

antee the tile installation if you iristalled the back-up

when dry-set mortars. were to be used to set the tile, is

that correct? A. We would.

Q. Now, when you are putting tile with dry-set mortar

directly onto a concrete block wall, do you or do the tile

setters claim the installation of the concrete block wall?

A.. We do not.

Q. Now, do you know if any other crafts, any other

contractors on jobs, have to guarantee the installation of '—

their work? I am talking about generally. [285] A. I

would presume that they Have some form of guarantee.

Whether it’s identical to ours I can’t say.

Q. And would you say as a contractor that has been in

business a long time that generally owners and architects

require every sub-contractor, as well as general contrac-

tor, to guarantee the work he installs for a period of a

year, one ‘year? A. Yes.

a ‘* * 2 * * * £ * *

(387) —Q. «(By Mr. Capuano) Now, Mr. Witness, did I

understand you to say yesterday: that if a tile contractor

installed the brown coat of mortar either on metal lath

over the scratch coat of’as the first coat on concrete block,

for example, as was done in the bathrooms at the Ander-

son Library, then he came back the next day or two. days

or a week later, and installed the [288] tile with a dry-

set mortar, did I understand you to say that that brown

coat of mortar would be the setting bed? A. Yes.

Ga at Dn hah re haw ars PPAR GOP ERIE LEI GOA GLE PAG LIT BBA hag RC:

E> aah > i as F

rm -

an ee

na aie Se

perets:

Q. Even though the coat is dry, correct? A. Yes.

Q. Now, do the American Standard Specifications call

the brown coat the mortar bed in the example I just gave

you? Do you know? A. Does the American Standards

. Associattion call for the mortar— |

Q. Do ‘the American. Standard Specifications— A.

Which one, now? . . ;

Q. P-7." A. Oh, P-7. All right.

Q. No, I am sorry, P-8, the dry-set mortar, do they

refer to the brown coat in the example I just gave you

as a mortar bed or as a mortar setting bed, as-you call

it? You may look at it. if you want. A. I couldn’t an-

swer that without an explanation. _ |

Q. Pardon me? A. I couldn’t answer that without an

explanation. ae : | |

Q. You couldn’t answer that question without an ex-

planation? A. Yes. I would have to see how the job is

specifically specified. ye

Q. I will tell you. The specification call, you. have got

a [289] concrete block, the specifications call for-a plumb

coat of mortar, Portland cement mortar. A. Yes.

Q. Over that concrete block. A. Right.

Q. Then the tile is to be set with a dry-set mortor, L.

& M., for example. You are familiar with L. & M.?

A. The specifications specifically state dry-set mortar? —

Q. Yes, dry-set mortar. And the tile contractor comes

back after the cpat of mortar is dry, the next day, a

week, two weeks, puts his tile on the wall with the dry-set

mortar. In that situation you indicated that the mortar

coat or the brown codt was a setting bed, correct? A.

If it’s installed by the tile setier, yes. ON

Q. If it’s installed by the. tile setter, you say. It’s not

the setting bed if it’s installed by the plasterers, right?

A. Correct. |

Q. Now, the American Standard Specifications make.

no distinction between who installs the. brown coat be-

hind the tile installed with dry-set mortar, correct? A.

Correct. _ + | | |

. 7 « -

- re -

NPR ae ome See Gp eeer se PPE EOI DIES EI EM 23 * - . ~~? = = 7 |. =

Q. That is all right. Now, let me ask you~apother

[290] hypothetical question. / |

Let’s take an example where the specifications /pro- 5

vide ‘that tile is to be installed in ‘the conventional meth-

od, over wire lath, and the plastering— A- Over: wire

lath?

ey eee

, , ; . | P

Q. Over wire ith. And in the plastering specications

‘ + it provides for & scratch coat, a brown coat, and the tile a

specifications it provides for a mortar setting bed. Set «

your tile in the conventional method. In that situation

you would float your mortar setting bed on top of the _ .

plumb coat-or brown coat of the plaster and you would -° |

install your tile right in that, correct? A. Yes. — |

Q. All right. “

Now, supposing after the plasterer fniahes putting on _

his brown coat, he has got a scratch coat on, he has put,

his brown coat on, now, under the American Standard -

Specifications for installation of tile and Portland ce-

ment mortars, P-7, it provides that the wall must be.

; plumb, level, up to a tolerance of one-quarteof an inch

in eight feet, correct? A. Yes.

Q. It does, O.K. 7 —

So after the plaster - puts his plumb coat on the wall,

now, .it’s supposed to be the conventional method, you will .

recall, the tile setter is going to put the setting ped on,

. . [291] the owner or the general cantractor, the architect,

_ decides that he wants this done faster or for any number

of reasons, and he tells you, the tile contractor, don*

bother putting on that mortar coat, put this wall up, in-

stall your tile with some dry-set mortar, Tec, L. & M.

You go ahead and do that, right? A. We can.

Q. All right. When you do that what coat has been

deleted? A. The final ans, bed. |

Q. Thank you.

. Would you get T-6, pleaaet I believe that is the ce-

ramic tile. specifications. A. I have them.

Q. Would you look at 19-4 of T-6? That is on page

- one, 1-1. A., Oh, I am sorry, I was sid at page 15-4.

15-4, .

‘ae

oe Ss ee ee ee ee ee

- ° _

ee ee

Legere owe’ OEP VOC GAM POEL ABTS let ga Opt g te Nae? as 4 PML BYP s tre Ay . * secre A

° 83 *

Q. You can read it to yourself. (a). There is only

(a) there. A. I have read it. Le

. Q. That is a standard type clause, isn’t it, in specifica-

tions? A. Yes. > | | no

Q. And generally, so the record is clear, provides that

you are supposed to inspect. any work over which you

are installing your work to make’ sure that it’s O.K.,

and if it isn’t proper [292] you are supposed to report

it to.the architect, right? A. Correct. ‘

’ Q. In other words,. if another contractor did so thing

“awhich you can’t put your work over— A. Corréct,

Q. —he will have to eorrect it, right? A. Yes,

Q. And if you go ahead and do your work you are, ac-

cepting the prior work, correct? A. Yes. ,

— Q. All right. SO

Now, look at 15-5, particularly (c). It describes a set-

ting bed. Do you see that? <A. Yes, I see it. .

Q. Now, perhaps it would be better if you read right

down to.15-7, not including 15-7, but I am referring to

'- the-sections entitled Materials and Laying Tile. I would

_ like to ask you some questions about that. A. Down to

15-7. © ; .

Q*Right. A. I have read it. : ~

Q.O0.K. | : Oo *

Now, in your opinion what method; which of the three

methods you described to us, is the architect requesting

that the tile be installed through these specifications on

[293] the Anderson job? Or if none of the three methods

tell us. A. Well, it isn’t specific enough to really define

whether it could be the conventional mortar ‘method or

whether it might be the thin-set method because of (c)

under 15-5 it says, “The sefting bed shall be one part

Portland cement and three parts sand, with two pounds

‘of Stearox 100,” which I am sorry to say I am not. fa-

miliar with, “added to each sack of cement.”

If this was not installed, and I don’t know what pur-

_ Pose it serves this“ would normally, be considered a

pretty rich mix to use for the final setting bed, ‘but as I

- mwe SpA BORE IN BE ER AR ALE 9 OLIN RINGS FLOP SONS VU OD 4S

have said before, I have not seen the job, I.don’t know

how it’s installed, and I am not sure, but I would, based

on that assumption, I will say that this is a conven-

tional mortar method.

Q. Conventional mortar method. O.K.

_ So that would mean that the tile should be soaked. A.

Would be. —

Q. And it would be set in that mixture of what the

architect calls the setting bed, consisting of one part

_ Portland cement and three parts sand, right? ? A. If I

may digress, the tile should be soaked if they are ‘set

the same day. -

Q. Well, in the Saventional method don’t you set it

“the same day? A. Not necessarily.

[294] Q. Well, I guess we will go back, then.

Didn’t we discuss this before about recommended meth-

ods of. setting tile in the conventional’ method? ’ A. I

- think yous.were talking about recommended. by A.S.A.,

and I am talking about the way it is normally put in.

Q. All right. “A. Because tile are installed Guier other

specifications than AWS.A.

Now, are you telling me that.in the conventional meth-

-od of setting tile the normal procedure is not to set the

tile the same day that you put on your mortar setting .

bed? .A. It can be.

Q. Now, listen to my question again. J believe you

heard it.

The normal method, isn’t the normal method in the

conventional way to set your tile the same day you in-

stall the mortar setting bed? A. No.

Q. That is not-the normal way? A. No, as of today,

“No.

‘Q. As of how long ago’ was it? A. Sometime after

the advent and.the use throughout the tile industry of

dry-set mortar has it been accepted that the conventional

mortar method allows you the option of allowing the final -

setting bed to harden and the tile can then [295] be ap-

@ |

85.

plied with a bond coat of dry-set‘mortar. Now, this has

been accepted and there are specifications, not A.S.A., I

will grant you, but there are others who specify it that

way, and they call it the Portland cement—I mean, I am

sorry, the conventional mortar method, allowing the con-

tractor that option.

Q. So you are using dry-set mortars in ‘the example you

are giving me in answer to my question about the con-

ventional method. A. They are using dry-set mortar as

a bonding agent, that’s right.

Q. O.K. .

Well,. now, we will specify some more details for you so

you don’t have to get into the dry-set mortar. We are

talking about the conventional method of installing tile

as set forth in P-7, Americari Standard Specifications for

Portland cement mortars. Are you with me? A. Yes, sir.

Q. We are talking about using dry-set mortars. We

‘are talking about the conventional method set forth in |

P-7. A. Oh. All right. - = set forth in P-7.

Q..Yes.

Q. Now, installing it in a conventional method, as I

just described, the tile would be installed in the mortar:

setting bed the same day, wouldn’t it? [296] A. As set

forth in that, yes.

Q. Now, if this job were the conventional method, as I

just described to you, the tile should be installed the

same day that the mortar setting bed is installed, correct?

A. I see no reference in this pecpeatens to A.S.A. speci-

- fications.

Q. Did you hear me put that in my question? _ A.

' That is why I can’t answer you. —

Q. All right. A. Because in your— “

Q. I will try to make it so you can answer.

Would you please take a look at page 15-2, ‘Section

‘15- 6, Laying Tile, Section (a), and see if that is going :

to help you to answer my question?.

Hearing Officer: What are you looking at?

Mr. Capuano: I am sorry, T-6. Those are the specifi-

cations for the installation of tile. A. It states there

only as ‘large an area as can be covered with tile before

the mortar has reached its initial set shall be~placed in

one operation.

Q. (By Mr. Capuano) And you.as a contractor would

interpret, wouldn’t you, the mortar they are referring to

there is thé mortar setting bed referred to back on page

15-1? A. Yes.

Q. So to get back to my question again, assuming, as.

you did, [297] that the architect is specifying the conven-

tional method on the Anderson Library, the tile should

have been set the same day that the mortar setting bed ~

was installed, rsa A. According to these specs.,

yes. oS |

- Q. Thank you.

Did I understand you to say in your direct testimony

that quarry tiles could not be set in a bed of mortar that

was plastic? - -A. I didn’t say they could not.

Q. Oh, ‘you did not say they could not. A. I don’t be-

lieve I said that.

Q. I am sorry, I wasn’t sure what you said.” A. Well,

I mean, when you are telling me what I said it’s hard

for me to remember what I said.

Q. That’s right, I understand that.

_ Well, in any event, you. do know, don’t you, that the

American Standard Specifications, P-7, which you have in

front of you, provides that when you are installing .

quarry tile, I am looking on page 20— A. That is all

right, I am familiar with it. ;

Q. —that you should “float the mortar setting bed over

areas no greater than may be covered with tile while the

setting bed remains plastic.” A. That’s correct.

Q. You disagree with them again? [298] A. No, I

_ don’t say I disagree with them. |

Q. O.K. You just say it could be done, is that what.

you are saying? A. I think I said before that it could

be installed on a di bed.

* * : 5 : . ‘ e

PEO E».-0 AE PEN egrap TAREE SPE ROL rg REN Set NENT ee eR ANE NRA CARIB Sy SNE GER AE ieee “OOO SPUN RE pee peat oat seapenees 2 ,

. .[813] Q. I don’t mind—O.K.

Now, when you say a wall.is plumb, what do you mean

by that? A. That it has a true surface so that when

you put a level on it that it does not vary from a plumb

line, which could be achieved by using a plumb bob and

a string, it.does not vary from that true surface. :

Q. O.K. A. That is considered to be plumb.

Q. I agree with you. A. O.K. At least we agree on

something.

Q. And what do you mean when you say that the wall

is to be square? A. Two adjoining surfaces, two ad- -

_ joining vertical surfaces, [314] must be in ninety de-

grees when measured: with a square or with whatever

you would call the instrument that a surveyor would

use. ‘

* * * * * * * * + a

[818] Q. (By Mr. Capuano) Now, when you do work -

now in new construction, new commercial construction, I

am. not talking about small buildings, I am talking” about

a good size project, like some of the buildings we see go-

ing up around here in Houston, are the buildings usually .

heated by the time you get in there, either temporarily -

or permanent heat operating? A. When conditions re-

quire it, yes.

Q. Many times the specifications require > that there be

heat in the building when you start doing your work don’t

they? A. If the outside temperature falls below a cer-—

tain requirement, yes.

* * * + * . # * * * *

[322] Q. No, no, Iam asking you a particular example.

I want you to take this particular case, a college dormi-

tory where you had ‘a bathtub, and you installed tile

around it and around the bathroom part of it. Now, —

where did you put Portland cement in that bathroom?

Did you put it around the tub? A. We installed Port-

land cement at a wainscot level around ‘the room and

to a six-foot level around the tub.

Q. All right.. |

Now, wainscot would be what, three to four feet? A.

Probably four foot six.

Q. Four foot six. And six foot around the tub. Did.

that reach the ceiling? A. No, it does not.

Q. All right.

What was above the six foot and the four foot? A

It was installed later and it was a gypsum plaster:

Q. Gypsum plaster.. All right.

So you had-six foot over the tub, you ae tile, correct?

A. Correct.

| Q. And you had Portland cement behind the tile? A.

Yes.

— Q. Did you have a coat of Portland coment or two.

‘coats on metal lath or something? [323] A. This was the

conventional method and we installed the setting bed.

Q. O.K.

Then you had~gypsum plaster above it? A. Yes.

Q# Did the plasterers put the brown coat below your

setting bed? A: They scratched the metal lath.

Q. You put the— A. We did the plumb coat and the

final setting bed. ;

Q. O.K.

And the plasterers up above your tile, around the tub,

and around the wainscoting, put on a brown coat of

plaster and then they put the white finish coat on, didn’t

they? A. Yes, they used the brown gypsum plaster .

over the face of it.

- Q. And they- met your tile with their plaster? A.

Yes.

Q. All right. .

Now, would that -be a common type job? A. I think

sO.

Q. O.K.

So in effect in that bedroom your tile. setters didn’t

claim that gypsum, did they, above your tile? A. Never

have. — .

: 4 =

CREA Na dab REMOTE a LS

mes mmmenteny Kn

Lh pra EIN

SRR Ab Lara is he Rhee A ETM Whi oe

BTCA ELS

WPL a tl RY BeAuaNeTte:

[324] Q. So in effect you had -two crafts putting on

brown coats in the bathroom, one craft putting on a gyp-

sum brawn coat and another craft putting on a Portland

cement. brown coat? A. Portland cement float coat.

Q. I don’t care what you call it. A. Plumb coat.

Q. One craft was putting on Portland cement and the

other craft was putting on gypsum brown coat, weren’t.

they? A. Well, unless the “were” is going to mean

-simultaneously, no.

Q. No, they weren’t simultaneously. A. O.K.

_ Q. They had two crafts in there? A. Correct, two

crafts would do the two types of work.

Q: You say-this was a conventional job, too. A. Yes.

Q. So actually the plumb coat. that your tile settérs put

on under the 1917 agreement, who would normally do -

that? A. Under the 1917 agreement it would have. been

the -plasterers: _

Q. So if they had done it they. would have put on a

gypsum brown coat and a Portland cement brown coat

while they were in the bath, couldn’t they? A. They

could have, but. they didn’t.

* * * . *& « . * * * *

[826] Q. (By Mr. Capuano) Now, you say when a tile

setter. applies a float coat he can do it to finished dimen-

sions, final dimensions, but you said when a plasterer puts

on his final coat he doesn’t know what the finished di-,

mensions are going to be or. his coat won’t finish to the

proper dimensions. Do. y

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.