# Appendix — NLRB v. Plasterers > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386413_0362%3A01 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1971 - **Citation:** 404 U.S. 116 ## Text Supreme Court of the Yuited States OCTOBER TERM, 1970 Oo: No. 1184 za 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 Fd 2 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 v 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 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 2 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 t ce ~ 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- 4. 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. - e 6 - 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 8 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. 9 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 10 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 11 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. . (c) Notify’ the Regional Director for Region 28, in © 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 - as . s 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) ep 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. Y | 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 16 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 17 _ 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 — 18 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 - . i, - 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 . . ’ 21 _ 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 22 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. , a "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 26 wows 2 [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 “ as 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 | a e ae 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- 28 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— | Y aelba ane at d Sicinrde or ° 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 30 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 82 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? sche ah feds sche dpacun iuna oa Mie Tia aa " 2. . * °° . Q. Now, do you recall at this meeting on the 25th’ ‘ - Cael | SSO AE IE oe ea teens ~~ a £2 \ query ¥ ~ Pat, 39 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. 40 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 41 [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 . * * * # * + 42 [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. Z i a | H i i 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— 8 , 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 44 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 =. 46 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 + 47 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. © Q. Wait a minute, now. We are talking about the bath- _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. ° 51 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. * * * * * * =. * +* . 52 [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? » 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 54 . 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. 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? 7) » 3 int aA ak gt ake oP at! ae ae ee dak OP een FE Te Se te et ee 58 | [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: i 7 s . af % Sos boon Sas ‘wee 59 f~ (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- pe 60 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. | “ 61 _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 4 65 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. _— 66 197] ‘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 68 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 69 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 ee 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 - 0 | 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, Q 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- ment pertains to the conventional. method, is that right, © 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? * * * - & 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 76 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 the title of that? A. Lathing and Plastering Trades. © _ 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 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? aah > i as F rm - an ee na aie Se perets: 81 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 - * - NERO a gets see ee © Np I GOEL EOI DERI EASY PE RCL EEN Tes OBE 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 , , ; . [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386413_0362%3A01. Public record. Not legal advice.