Vogler, Jr. v. McCarty, Inc. Reply Brief on Behalf of Appellant

    IN THE

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 71-1458
PAUL VOGLER, ei aL

Plaintiffs,
versus

McCARTY, INC., ei al.
Defendants-Appellants,

LOCAL 53 OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HEAT 
AND FROST INSULATORS AND ASBESTOS WORKERS,

Defendant-Appellee.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

versus

LOCAL 53 OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HEAT 
AND FROST INSULATORS AND ASBESTOS WORKERS,

Defendant-Appellee,
MASTER INSULATOR'S ASSOCIATION OF 
NEW ORLEANS AND BATON ROUGE, LA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 
Eastern District of Louisiana

REPLY BRIEF RY AND ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT-MASTER 
INSULATOR'S ASSOCIATION OF NEW ORLEANS AND 

BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA

Counsel:
MICHAEL J. MOLONY, JR., (TC) and
HORACE A. THOMPSON, III of
Jones, Walker, Waechier, Poitevent,
Carrere and Denegre
225 Baronne Street
New Orleans, Louisiana 70112



TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

I. INTRODUCTION ............................................  2

II. CONTRARY TO THE UNITED STATES’ 
CONTENTION, A LOGICAL CONSE­
QUENCE OF THE COURT-ORDER 
SENIORITY SYSTEM IS THAT EXIST­
ING MEMBERS OF LOCAL 53 AND 
TRAVELERS WILL BE FAVORED TO 
THE DETRIMENT OF NEWLY AD­
MITTED MEMBERS, AND THIS IS IN 
FACT THE ADMITTED OBJECTIVE
OF THE SYSTEM ........................................  4

III. THE EFFECTS FLOWING FROM THE 
FAVORITISM OF SENIOR WHITE 
MECHANICS DO NOT FURTHER THE 
ENDS OF TITLE VII AND IN FACT IN 
CERTAIN RESPECTS ARE ADVERSE
TO THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT ............  5

IV. CONCLUSION ............................................... 10
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

DECISIONS OF THE COURTS
United Steel Workers v. NLRB (Roanoke Iron 

and Bridge Works, 390 F.2d 846 (D. C. Cir.
1967) .................................................................  10-11

DECISIONS OF THE NLRB
International Association of Heat and Frost In­

sulator’s and Asbestos Workers Local 53 (Mc­
Carty and Armstrong) 185 NLRB No. 8 9 .........8, 9



IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OE APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 71-1458

PAUL VOGLER, et al,
Plaintiffs,

versus

McCARTY, INC., et al,
Defendants-Appellants,

LOCAL 53 OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION 
OF HEAT AND FROST INSULATORS AND 

ASBESTOS WORKERS,
Defendant-Appellee,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

versus

LOCAL 53 OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION 
OF HEAT AND FROST INSULATORS AND 

ASBESTOS WORKERS,
Defendant-Appellee,

MASTER INSULATOR’S ASSOCIATION OF 
NEW ORLEANS AND BATON ROUGE, LA.,

Defendant-Appellant.



2

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 
Eastern District of Louisiana

REPLY BRIEF BY AND ON BEHALF OF APPEL­
LANT-MASTER INSULATOR’S ASSOCIATION OF 
NEW ORLEANS AND BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

I. Introduction

The Master Insulator’s Association previously filed 
a brief in the instant case to present its position on 
the questions of first impression here presented: 
whether the equity jurisdiction of the District Court 
pursuant to Sections 708(g) and 707(a) of Title VII of 
the Civil Rights Act of 1984 is limited to exercises nec­
essary to accomplish specific statutory objectives, and 
whether the District Court should, in the exercise of 
sound discretion, defer to voluntary collective bargain­
ing over terms and conditions of employment which 
do not themselves alleviate the present effects of past 
discrimination. The briefs subsequently submitted by 
Local 53 of the International Association of Heat and 
Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers [hereinafter 
referred to as Union or Local 53], and particulary by 
the United States do not deny that the core issue here 
involved is a definition of the limits of the equity juris­
diction of a District Court monitoring an order ren­
dered pursuant to Title VII. However, both the brief 
of Local 53 and of the United States relate extensively 
their position that a seniority provision is a desirable



3

feature of a collective bargaining agreement and is
in certain ways superior to other alternative systems.

Local 53 argues that a seniority system has “an hon­
orable place in the history of labor relations,” [Brief 
of Local 53, p. 14], is sanctioned as legal by the Nation­
al Labor Relations Act [Brief of Local 53, p. 16], pro­
vides gainful employment for the most senior employ­
ees [Brief of Local 53, p. 17], and provides job security 
for older employees [Brief of Local 53, p. 17]. The Unit­
ed States argues that the Association’s opposition to 
the seniority system is unnecessary, since they are 
protected from undesirable employees by an “informal 
black ball procedure.” [Brief of United States, p. 21].

While each of these arguments could be met with 
countervailing considerations showing how a preferen­
tial referral system based on seniority is inimical to 
the interests of the employer, the younger employee, 
and the industry as a whole, the Association will not 
engage in such a fruitless debate. The determination 
of whether a seniority system is preferable from one 
point of view or another to a merit system, or to a 
completely objective referral system, based on the 
principle of first in-first out, is to be made at the collec­
tive bargaining table. These arguments are not appro­
priate before a court or administrative body unless 
the provision in some way accomplishes the ends 
sought by Title YII or is otherwise regulated by law. 
The Association’s entire brief on appeal is directed 
to this last point and value judgments as to the relative 
desirability of one provision of a collective1 bargaining 
agreement over another are irrelevant and unrespon­
sive to the core issue raised by the Association as Ap­
pellant.



4

Other portions of the briefs of the United States and
of Local 53 seek to counter specific premises of the 
Association’s brief and the Association’s reply will be 
addressed to demonstrating the error of these counter­
arguments.

II. Contrary To The United States’ Contention,
A Logical Consequence Of The Court-Ordered 
Seniority System Is That Existing Members Of 
Local S3 And Travelers Will Be Favored To The 
Detriment Of Newly Admitted Members, And This 
Is In Fact The Admitted Objective Of The System.

The Association’s previous brief asserted that the 
system as it operates after the January 22, 1971 order 
favors existing members of Local 53 and travelers to 
the detriment of newly-admitted members and non­
members in terms of access to job opportunities. The 
United States sought in its brief to cloud this issue 
by denying the existence of facts in the record estab­
lishing this contention. [Brief of United States, p. 15].

This attack initially fails to recognize that the As­
sociation’s statement was based on the logical conse- 
sequences of the court order. We submit that it can 
certainly be deduced that seniority systems will favor 
the most senior to the detriment of the most junior.

But the thrust of the United States’ argument is in­
consistent also with its own a s s u m p t i o n s  and 
statements, and with those of the Union. The United 
States described a dilemma “where it became a mat­
ter of choosing between relatively stable employment



5

for a small number of people, or relatively little em­
ployment for large numbers of people . . . [Brief 
of United States, p. 11]. It noted, “The preference 
would become significant only at such time as the num­
ber of men seeking referrals for employment substan­
tially exceeded the number of men needed to meet 
the manpower requirements of insulation contractors 
who rely on the Local to provide them with asbestos 
workers.” The United States and the Union agreed with 
the Association that such a situation currently exists. 
[Brief of United States, p. 10] [Brief of Local 53, p. 6].

The United States inconsistently argues on the one 
hand that the record does not establish that newly-ad­
mitted members and non-members will actually be 
harmed. On the other hand, it argues in support of 
the order that the situation had developed where it 
became necessary to deprive newly-admitted mem­
bers and non-members of jobs in order to provide 
steady employment for senior union members. The 
government’s query as to the number and identity of 
new members and non-members who will be harmed 
seems to be a transparent attempt to distract the Court 
from the core issue, i.e., whether the District Court 
is empowered to make the value judgment necessary 
to determine which group of white workers will be al­
lotted the reduced number of job opportunities avail­
able. III.

III. The Effects Flowing From The Favori­
tism Of Senior White Mechanics Do Not Further 
The Ends Of Title VII And In Fact In Certain 
Respects Are Adverse To The Purposes Of The 
Act.



6

The Association’s previous brief indicated certain 
consequences flowing from the January 22, 1971 order 
which are adverse to the objectives of Title VII of the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964. The United States offered sev­
eral counter-arguments in its brief which, the Associa­
tion submits, are either unfounded or substantially er­
roneous.

The Association’s first point was that new mechanics 
or permit workers seeking gainful employment at the 
insulating trade would be virtually excluded from the 
trade, or at least would be so limited in employment 
opportunities that they would be discouraged from re­
maining in the trade. In response to this point, the 
United States’ brief implicitly conceded that new work­
ers would be shut out of the trade during the currently 
depressed economic situation in the insulation indus­
try, but countered that these consequences would dis­
appear “at such times as the defendant contractors 
and other contractors who employ through the Local 
are utilizing the experienced manpower which is a- 
vailable.”

In effect, the government’s response to the first sug­
gested consequence is that this objectionable result of 
the seniority system will disappear as soon as their 
stated justification for the seniority system disap­
pears. But more than that, the argument dismisses 
the immediate consequences of reduced or foreclosed 
employment opportunities for young insulators as be­
ing inconsequential, presumably because the conse­
quences may be only temporary. Not only does the 
argument viewed in this light reveal an unproven as­
sumption, i.e., that the economic situation will cer­



7

tainly improve; but even if the system were only tem­
porarily closed to younger workers, the results would 
be permanent. Jobs and wages lost by young workers 
in order to insure steadier employment for the older 
workers could never be regained and the loss to the 
industry measured in terms of young workers forever 
discouraged from pursuing the trade would be long- 
lasting.

The second undesirable consequence of the seniority 
system enumerated in the Associations’ brief was that 
Local 53’s past nepotistic favoritism of relatives to the 
exclusion of others seeking to enter the trade would 
be perpetuated through the “closed shop” created by 
the seniority system. This point was answered in the 
United States’ brief with the statement: “Under the 
system as modified by the January 22 order, new men 
can get experience at the trade as either mechanics 
or improvers — but they will have to wait until the 
experienced men are employed.’’’ [Emphasis Added.] 
[Brief of United States, p. 16],

The United States’ own statement makes the point 
which the Association seeks to establish, that while 
job opportunities remain scarce, the new mechanics 
who previously had been denied membership in the 
Union because of the Local’s nepotistic practices will 
be denied employment opportunities in order to bene­
fit the past recipients of nepotistic favoritism.

The United States’ contention that opening the rolls 
to non-relatives has in some way alleviated the effects 
of past nepotistic favoritism is, we submit, wholly fal­
lacious. The contention rests precariously upon the un­



8

supported assumption that past nepotism resulted only 
in deprivation of membership, but not in reduced refer­
ral opportunities, This assumption is factually false. 
The National Labor Relations Board, found in Case No. 
15-CB-775, International Association of Heat and Frost 
Insulator’s and Asbestos Workers Local 53 (McCarty 
and Armstrong) that during the same period of time 
covered by the finding of the District Court below that 
Local 53 had been depriving non-relatives of member­
ship status, the same Local had also been illegally 
granting preference in referral for overtime work to 
Union members over non-members. 185 NLRB No. 89. 
[Copy annexed hereto].

The Association’s third point was that although the 
seniority preferences among white mechanics would 
not immediately hinder the job opportunities of black 
mechanics, eventually, when the referral lists are mer­
ged, black mechanics may have to compete in terms 
of seniority with senior white mechanics who receive 
prejudicially inflated seniority through the preferen­
tial seniority system. This third point was answered 
by the United States with assurances that the United 
States and the plaintiffs would not “agree to an order 
ending the one-for-one referral system which would 
operate substantially or significantly to reduce the job 
opportunities available to blacks.” [Brief of United 
States, p. 17], The plaintiffs apparently do not feel so 
secure as the United States, since in their brief they 
agree with the Association that “provision should be 
made that additional employment opportunities ac­
corded to senior white mechanics are not later used, 
when referral lists are merged, to accord them advan­
tages over Black employees.” [Brief of Plaintiff, p.



9

3], The plaintiffs recognize, as did the Association, that 
the zeal of the Local and the United States for a seniori­
ty system of preferential referral for senior white me­
chanics could operate to the substantial harm of the 
Black workers when ultimately the referral lists are 
merged, which the United States conceded will occur, 
“hopefully in the not too distant future.” [Brief of Unit­
ed States, p. 17]. However, the United States has of­
fered no concrete plan by which senior white mechan­
ics’ artificially inflated seniority gained during the op­
eration of the Court Order could at a later time be 
neutralized. The Association submits that the problem 
of artificially inflated seniority for the most senior 
white mechanics is inherent in any seniority system 
for white mechanics ordered by the Court.

The fourth and final undesirable consequence point­
ed out by the Associations’ brief was that a seniority 
provision would restrict referral opportunities for Mex­
ican-Americans in Local 53. The United States’ brief 
argues that this anticipated consequence is “based on 
a misreading of the May 31, 1967 order of the District 
Court.” It interprets that the District Court found that 
Mexican-Americans and members of other minority 
groups other than blacks were denied membership in 
the Local, but not referral opportunities. This is a dis­
tinction without a difference, since Mexican-Ameri- 
cans deprived of membership status prior to the order 
of the National Labor Relations Board in Case No. 15- 
CB-775 were presumably deprived also through denied 
overtime referrals of the opportunity to accumulate 
seniority hours. See: International Association of Heat 
and Frost Insulator’s and Asbestos Workers Local 53 
(McCarty and Armstrong), 185 NLRB No. 89 [Copy 
annexed.]



10

IV. CONCLUSION

The entire draft of the brief of the United States 
seems to be directed toward the dangerous conclusion 
that the Justice Department and the courts should have 
the opportunity pursuant to the equity jurisdiction of 
the court under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to 
review each and every aspect of the collective bargain­
ing relationship between a union and employer to de­
termine whether each provision is “fair and equita­
ble.” Thus the United States would argue that if the 
employer could not produce legitimate and substantial 
business justifications for resisting the Union’s de­
mand for a particular proposal, albeit that the proposal 
is not necessary to accomplish the specific objectives 
of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, a court may impose 
its judgment of what is a “just” provision. This unpre­
cedented and startling proposition should not be per­
mitted to erode the process of free and voluntary col­
lective bargaining. If this Court allows such an action 
to remain an accomplished fact, it would not be incon­
ceivable to foresee the Justice Department and the 
courts determining pursuant to such overly-broad equi­
ty powers that union security clauses and dues check 
off clauses are necessary for “the efficient operation 
of the court order.” As Mr. Chief Justice Burger (then 
Judge Burger) stated with respect to a proposal simi­
lar in its implications:

“. . . .  [Oj nce such a rule is made, it is clear 
that ...  the courts are immersed in the sub­
stantive terms of the collective bargaining con­
tract. This is not their role and the Supreme 
Court has been quite clear on this point.” Unit­



11

ed Steel Workers v. NLRB (Roanoke Iron and 
Bridge Works, Inc.) 390 F. 2d 846, 856 (D. C.
Cir. 1967) (Dissenting Opinion; footnotes omit­
ted.)

For the above-stated reasons, as well as those set 
forth in the Association’s prior brief, the decision of 
the Court below should be reversed.

Respectfully submitted,

MICHAEL J. MOLONY, JR. 
(T.C.) and

HORACE A. THOMPSON, III of 
Jones, Walker, Waechter, 
Poitevent, Carrere and Denegre 
28th Floor — 225 Raronne Street 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 
Counsel for Defendant 

. MASTER INSULATOR’S 
ASSOCIATION

CERTIFICATE

I certify that a copy of the foregoing Reply Brief 
of the Master Insulators Association was mailed, post­
age prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested, 
this — day of August, 1971, to Counsel of record for 
opposing parties, in accordance with Rules 31(a) and 
(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

MICHAEL J. MOLONY, JR.



la

APPENDIX

185 NLRB No. 89 D-4010
New Orleans, La.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HEAT AND 
FROST INSULATORS AND ASBESTOS WORKERS 

LOCAL No. 53 (McCarty and Armstrong)

and Case 15-CB-775
PAUL A. VOGLER, JR., An Individual

DECISION AND ORDER

On December 18, 1968, Trial Examiner, Marion C. 
Ladwig issued his Decision in the above-entitled pro­
ceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in 
and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices 
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations 
Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and 
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, 
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner’s Decision. 
He further found that the Respondent had not engaged 
in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the 
complaint and recommended that the complaint be dis­
missed insofar as it alleged any violations of the Act 
not specifically found. Thereafter, the General Counsel 
filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner’s Decision and 
a supporting brief; the Respondent filed a “Motion to



2a

Recuse and Disqualify the Trial Examiner,” excep­
tions to the Trial Examiner’s Decision, and a support­
ing brief; and the Charging Party filed a brief in op­
position to the Respondent’s exceptions, and a motion 
to reopen the case and admit new evidence.

The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Ex­
aminer made at the hearing and finds that no preju­
dicial error was committed.1 The rulings are hereby 
affirmed.* 2 The Board has considered the Trial Exam­
iner’s Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the en­
tire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, 
conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Ex­
aminer, as modified below.

For the reasons stated below, we find merit in the 
following contentions by the General Counsel in his 
exceptions. Fullen should be found to be a discrimina- 
tee and should be ordered to be made whole; from 
January 5 until August 1966, the Union refused to refer 
Vogler because of his nonunion status and the Trial 
Examiner should have passed on such allegation; as 
part of the remedy the Trial Examiner should have

'We deny as lacking in merit Respondent’s Motion to Disqualify 
the Trial Examiner on the ground that he is prejudiced against 
any individual or organization which allegedly discriminated 
on a racial or color basis and that he therefore erred in his 
credibility resolutions and weighing the evidence. It is establish­
ed Board policy not to overrule a Trial Examiner’s credibility 
findings, unless, as is not the case here, a clear preponderance 
of all relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. 
Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F.2d 
362 (C.A. 3).

2We deny the motion of the Charging Party to admit additional 
evidence. Even assuming as true the factual matters raised 
in his motion, we find that they would not affect the determina­
tions herein made.



3a

required Respondent to operate a non-discriminatory 
hiring hall if it operates any; such remedy should also 
include provisions requiring Respondent to make the 
discriminatee permit men whole for being prevented 
by discrimination from having sufficient hours to qual­
ify for the welfare fund; the Trial Examiner should 
have ordered that records be kept of the hiring hall 
and pension funds with such records being available 
to the Board for inspection; and the Order and Notice 
should be amended to prohibit the Respondent from 
causing the Employer to hire union members because 
a non-member is on the job if such hire results in the 
displacement of the nonmember.

The Trial Examiner found that the Union illegally 
induced McCarty to transfer permit men Vogler, Kerr, 
Horace D. Brown, and Juan B. Galaviz from an over­
time job because of their lack of union membership 
and in order to give preference to union members in 
the assignment of overtime, but made no findings as 
to Brooks Fullen, Jr., on the ground that the General 
Counsel failed to name him as one of the discrimina­
te es. Section 15 of the complaint alleges that from on 
or about January 2, 1966, to date, and at all times ma­
terial herein, Respondent attempted to cause McCarty 
to deny overtime employment to employees Juan Gala­
viz, Vogler, and others (emphasis supplied) because 
they were not members of Respondent and/or to pro­
vide additional overtime opportunities for members 
of Respondent. Accordingly, and as the record shows 
that Fullen was treated in exactly the same manner 
as Vogler, Kerr, Brown, and Galaviz, who were includ­
ed in the Trial Examiner’s findings, we hereby include 
Fullen in this finding.



4a

On the ground that the remedy for such violation 
would be cumulative, the Trial Examiner found it un­
necessary to pass on the allegation that from. January 
5, 1966, until about August 1966, the Union refused to 
refer Vogler for employment because of this nonunion 
status. We disagree with the Trial Examiner and make 
the following findings:

The record shows that although Vogler remained a- 
vailable for referral after he was laid off from the 
International Trade Mart job and, in fact, unsuccess­
fully solicited referrals from various employers, Busi­
ness Agent O’Brien admitted that he refused to refer 
Vogler at least until sometime in March 1966. This oc­
curred even though it was stipulated that other refer­
rals were made during this period from January 1, 
1966, through March 3, the date Vogler went to work, 
and also from July 13, 1966, through August 1966. It 
is clear that Vogler had notified O’Brien of his avail­
ability. In March 1966, O’Brien discovered that Vogler 
was working at Eagle Asbestos Company, where he 
had been employed on his own and without O’Brien’s 
knowledge. Vogler worked on the Eagle job until June 
9, when he and others were laid off in anticipation 
of a possible strike. About August 17 or 18, Eagle of­
fered Vogler a job again, but about August 22 told him 
that under a new policy he would have to obtain a 
permit from the Union before he could go to work. 
Vogler then reported to O’Brien that he had been of­
fered a job by Eagle but that he had to obtain a permit 
from O’Brien. O’Brien refused to send Vogler to the 
Eagle job but instead referred him to Union Carbide, 
to which Vogler reported. As it is clear that a card 
member of the Union could obtain his own job without



O’Brien’s approval, it was discriminatory for O’Brien 
to refuse to send nonmember Vogler to the job Vogler 
had obtained on his own. Moreover, the referral to 
an employer other than Eagle is clearly a discrimina­
tory referral of Vogler. In these circumstances, we 
find that Respondent by refusing to refer Vogler for 
jobs from January 5 until sometime in March 1966, 
and by refusing to allow Vogler to obtain his own job 
in August 1966 while a card member of the Union was 
permitted to obtain his own job, Respondent violated 
Section 8(b) (2) and (1) A) of the Act.

Conclusions of Law

In accordance with our above findings of violations 
of the Act not found by the Trial Examiner, we hereby 
amend his Conclusions of Law as follows:

Amended Conclusions of Law

1. By causing McCarty, Armstrong, and other em­
ployer-members of the Association, through a discrim­
inatory oral understanding, arrangement, and prac­
tice, to give priority in employment on the basis of 
union membership, in violation of Section 8(a) (3) of 
the Act, the Union has engaged in unfair labor prac­
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec­
tion 8(b) (2) and (1) (A) and Section 2(6) and (7) of 
the Act.

2. By causing Armstrong discriminatorily to deny 
overtime to Bill Wonzer and Olan Wonzer on and after 
November 6, and to lay them off on November 12, be­



6a

cause of their nonunion status, the Union violated Sec­
tion 8(b) (2) and (1) (A) of the Act.

3. By causing McCarty discriminatorily to transfer 
Kerr and Brown on December 29, and Yogler, Galaviz, 
and Fallen on December 31, to deny them overtime 
thereafter, and to lay off Vogler and Galaviz on Jan­
uary 5, because of their nonunion status, the Union 
violated Section 8(b) (2) and (1) (A) of the Act.

4. By refusing to refer Vogler for employment from 
January 5, 1966, until about August 1966, because of 
his nonunion status, the Union violated Section 8(b) 
(2) and (1) (A) of the Act.

The Remedy

Although the Trial Examiner found that the Re­
spondent’s hiring arrangement was illegal because of 
discrimination based on union membership, neverthe­
less he made no recommendation as to remedy be­
cause of the outstanding injunction by the U. S. District 
Court affecting the hiring hall. Contrary to the Trial 
Examiner, we shall provide our usual remedy for op­
erating a hiring hall which is illegal on the ground 
of union preference. We therefore shall order that the 
Respondent cease and desist from operating the hiring 
arrangement herein found to be unlawful and, if it con­
tinues to operate a hiring hall, to operate one that is 
not discriminatory.

As we have found that Brooks Fullen, Jr., along with 
Volger, Galaviz, Kerr, and Brown, was denied an over­
time job because of his nonunion status, we find that



7a

Fullen should be made whole for his loss of wages 
in the same manner provided for by the Trial Exam­
iner in his remedy with respect to Vogler, Galaviz, 
Kerr, and Brown.

In his remedy, the Trial Examiner failed to include 
any provision requiring Respondent to make whole the 
discriminates permit men, who, because of the dis­
crimination against them, were prevented from ac­
quiring the requisite number of hours to qualify for 
the joint union and employer welfare fund. The record 
shows that the Employer, during the critical period 
herein, made contributions to the welfare fund in an 
amount of 10 or 15 cents per hour, and an employee 
qualifies if he works 480 hours in a 6-month period. 
It is clear in the instant situation that Vogler, Brown, 
Galaviz, Kerr, and Fullen would have worked on their 
job until it ended sometime in March 1966, and would 
have qualified for the fund but for the discriminatory 
transfers. In these circumstances, we shall order that 
these employees receive a credit by the Respondent 
for the welfare fund for the hours that they would have 
worked if they had not been discriminatorily trans­
ferred. We further shall order, if Respondent is re­
quired under the welfare plan to make these contribu­
tions, that Respondent make the contributions neces­
sary to make these employees whole for the discrim­
ination against them. We shall also order that the Re­
spondent keep full records of its nondiscriminatory hir­
ing hall and its welfare and pension funds, and to make 
such records available to the Board for periodic in­
spection. Finally, we find merit in the exception that 
the Trial Examiner’s Order and Notice should be a- 
mended so that Respondent is prohibited from causing



8a

any employer to hire a union member because a non- 
member is on the job if such hire results in the dis­
placement of such nonmember.

ORDER

Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re­
lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations 
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Internation­
al Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbes­
tos Workers Local No. 53, its officers, agents, and rep­
resentatives, shall:

1. Cease and desist from:

(a) Causing or attempting to cause McCarty, 
Inc., and Armstrong Contracting and Supply Corpora­
tion, members of the Master Insulators Association, 
or any other employer, to discriminate against employ­
ees or prospective employees by refusing to hire them 
on the unlawful basis of union membership or main­
taining, performing, or enforcing, by agreement or 
otherwise, any like or related arrangement in a man­
ner whereby referrals to available jobs are based on 
the unlawful basis of union membership.

(b) Causing or attempting to cause McCarty, 
Inc., and Armstrong Contracting and Supply Corpora­
tion, members of the Master Insulators Association, 
or any other employer, to deny any employee over­
time, to lay off or transfer him, or to discriminate 
against him in anyway, because of his nonunion status.



9a

(c) Causing any employer to hire a union mem­
ber because a nonmember is on a job if such hire re­
sults in the displacement of such nonmember.

(d) Threatening any employer with a strike, or 
with the withdrawal of skilled labor, for refusing to 
deny overtime, to lay off, or to otherwise discriminate 
against a nonunion employee because of his nonunion 
status.

(e) In any like or related manner restraining or 
coercing nonmembers in the exercise of their rights 
as employees under Section 7 of the Act.

2. Take the following affirmative action necessary 
to effectuate the policies of the Act:

(a) If Respondent continues to operate a hiring 
arrangement or hall, to operate one that does not dis­
criminate on the basis of union membership.

(b) Make whole Paul A. Vogler, Jr., Juan B. Gal- 
aviz, Leon Kerr, Horace D. Brown, Bill Wonzer, and 
Olan Wonzer, as provided in the section of the Trial 
Examiner’s Decision entitled “The Remedy,” and 
make whole Brooks Fullen, Jr., as provided herein un­
der “The Remedy.”

(c) Credit Paul A. Vogler, Jr., Juan B. Galaviz, 
Leon Kerr, Horace D. Brown, Bill Wonzer, Olan Won- 
er and Brooks Fullen, Jr., for application of the wel­
fare fund, with the number of hours they would have 
worked if they had not been discriminatorily laid off 
and/or transferred; and credit them with any contri­



10a

bution to the fund which Respondent may be required
to make and which these employees would have re­
ceived but for the discrimination against them.

(d) Keep full records of its nondiscriminatory 
hiring hall and its welfare and pension funds and make 
such records available to the Board for periodic inspec­
tion.

(e) Post in the Respondent’s business offices and 
meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked 
“Appendix.”3 Copies of said notice, on forms provided 
by the Regional Director for Region 15, after being 
duly signed by an authorized representative of the Re­
spondent, shall be posted immediately upon receipt 
thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days 
thereafter. Copies shall be posted in conspicuous 
places, within clear view of all persons seeking re­
ferrals by the Respondent, and all persons entering 
the Respondent’s hiring halls. Reasonable steps shall 
be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices 
are not altered, • defaced, or covered by any other ma­
terial. Upon request of the Regional Director, Respond­
ent shall supply him with a sufficient number of signed 
copies for posting by McCarty, Inc., and Armstrong 
Contracting and Supply Corporation, and members of 
the Master Insulators Association of New Orleans and 
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Inc., if desired by them.

sin the event this Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United 
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading “POST­
ED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS 
BOARD” shall read “POSTED PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT 
OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORC­
ING AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS 
BOARD.”



11a

(f) Notify the Regional Director of Region 15, in 
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, 
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply here­
with.

Dated, Washington, D. C.

Edward B. Miller, Chairman

John H. Fanning, Member

Gerald A. Brown, Member 
NATIONAL LABOR 
RELATIONS BOARD

(SEAL)

D-4010

Member Jenkins, concurring and dissenting:

I concur in the legal conclusions reached by my 
colleagues that the Union’s conduct, as described by 
the Board majority, violated Sections 8(b) (2) and 8(b) 
(1) (A) of the Act for the reasons therein stated. In 
short, the Board finds, and I agree, that the Charging 
Parties were discriminated against because they were 
not union members. I

I dissent from the Board’s unwillingness to find the 
conduct violative of these same sections of the Act 
for the additional reason that the discrimination was



based on race and national origin. The central criti­
cal fact underlying this litigation is the unlawful at­
tempt of the Union to exclude from jobs under its con­
trol all black and Mexican-American employees. The 
Trial Examiner did not pass on whether the hiring 
arrangement was discriminatory on the additional 
ground of race and national origin because1 he con­
cluded, as a matter of comity between the branches 
of the Federal Government, it was not proper to rule 
on these additional matters which were similar to the 
racial issues before the United States District Court. 
At the time of the Trial Examiner’s Decision, the Unit­
ed States District Court for the Eastern District of Lou­
isiana, New Orleans Division, in Civil Actions Nos. 66- 
749 and 66-833 had issued a temporary injunction en­
joining racial discrimination in membership require­
ments and referrals by Respondent.4 That injunction 
was in effect at the time of the trial of the instant 
case.

It is my view that when violations of the National 
Labor Relations Act are alleged, the Board has the 
primary responsibility to rule on them and I would 
resolve any conflict with the court order at the compli­
ance level.

The instant case is within the Board’s jurisdiction. 
The Board has already held, with Court approval, that

4Paul Vogler, Jr. v. McCarty, Inc., 294 F.Supp. 368 (D.C.La.), affd. 
sub nom. Local 53 of the Inti. Assn, of Heat & Frost Insulators 
v. Paul Vogler, Jr., 407 F.2d 1047 (C.A. 5, 1969), in which an 
injunction issued against Respondent for discriminating against 
Negroes and Mexican-Americans in employment on account of 
their race, color, or national origin.



13a

Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in no way limits 
the Board’s powers and duties under the National La­
bor Relations Act.3 Further, it is well established that 
it is within the jurisdiction of the Board, under the 
National Labor Relations Act, to rule on alleged viola­
tions arising out of hiring practices or arrangements 
that discriminate on the basis of race or national ori­
gin.6 Accordingly, I would rule on whether the Re­
spondent’s hiring practices violate the Act for racial 
reasons.

The record shows that Respondent’s business agent, 
O’Brien, testified that since “sometimes along in, the 
’60’s” only sons and nephews of members were con­
sidered for membership,7 and at that time he did not 
know of any Negro members. It was stipulated that 
during the months of October, November, and Decem­
ber of 1965 and January of 1966 there were no Negroes 
in the membership of Respondent. Moreover, O’Brien 
further testified that it was the policy of the Union 
during the winter of 1965 not to admit Negroes into 
membership; and in the winter of 1965 no Negroes were 
referred out to work. It was stipulated that C'asimere 
Joseph, a Negro and the first to apply for membership, 
applied “for the Union” around the end of December

sLocal Union No. 12, United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic 
Workers of America, AFL-CIO (The Business League of Gads­
den), 150 NLRB 312, 320-322, enld. 368 F.2d 12 (C.A. 5), cert, 
denied 389 U.S. 837.

6Houston Maritime, Inc., and Its Member Companies, 168 NLRB 
No. 83, enforcement denied on other grounds, 426 F.2d 584, 
(C.A. 5), decided May 12, 1970; Cargo Handlers, Inc., 159 NLRB 
321, and cases cited therein.

7It appears that membership thus was barred to Negroes and to 
Mexican-Americans.



14a

1965. O’Brien testified that the policy of the Union dur­
ing October, November, December of 1965 and January 
1966 was not to refer Negroes out for employment.

The first Negroes who applied to the Union for em­
ployment were referred on November 19, 1965, and on 
November 23, respectively by the1 Urban League, and 
Respondent refused to send them out for employment.

It is also alleged by the General Counsel that Re­
spondent discriminated against Mexican-Amerioans. 
While the evidence is clear with respect to the Re­
spondent’s policy not to admit Negroes to- membership 
and not to refer them to jobs, it also appears that Re­
spondent had a policy against admitting Mexican-A- 
mericans to membership. Thus O’Brien testified that 
Respondent had been working three Mexican brothers 
from Mobile but that, in effect, there were not enough 
Mexicans in New Orleans to be a problem. O’Brien 
also stated that “if you were over in San Antonio or 
El Paso .. .  they could probably charge you with dis­
crimination . . . . ” In this connection we also note the 
statement of union steward Jimmy Lawrence to Gala- 
viz that “ they wanted to keep the Negroes and Mexi­
cans out of the Local.” This statement is not denied 
by Lawrence. It is also noted that Vogler made unsuc­
cessful attempts to inquire about getting Galaviz, a 
Mexican-American, into the Local.8

sSee Vogler v. McCarty, Inc., supra, in which an injunction issued 
against Respondent for discriminating against Negroes and 
Mexican-Americans in employment on account of their race, 
color, or national origin.



15a

Based on the facts detailed above, I would find that 
the Respondent on the critical dates herein involved 
maintained a preferential hiring arrangement which 
discriminated against Negroes and Mexican-Ameri­
cans because of race and national origin. I would also 
find that the Respondent, by maintaining a hiring ar­
rangement which gave preference on, the basis of race 
or national origin as well as preference on the basis 
of union membership, violated Section 8(b) (2) and 
(1) (A) of the Act. To remedy such violation, I would 
order that the Respondent cease and desist from op­
erating a hiring arrangement which is unlawful on the 
basis of race as well as union membership and, if it 
continues a hiring hall, to operate one that is not dis­
criminatory on either of these two grounds.9
Dated, Washington, D. C.

Howard Jenkins, Jr., Member 
NATIONAL LABOR 
RELATIONS BOARD

sHouston Maritime Association, Inc., and Its Member Companies, 
168 NLRB No. 83, enforcement denied solely on the ground of 
insufficient evidence to support a finding of racial discrimina­
tion during the 10(b) period, 426 F.2d 584 (C.A. 5), decided 
May 12, 1970; Cargo Handlers, Inc., 159 NLRB 321. Cf. Local 
Union No. 12, United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Work­
ers of America, AFL-CIO (The Business League of Gadsden), 
150 NLRB 312, enfd. 368 F.2d 12 (C.A. 5), cert, denied 389 
U.S. 837; Local 1367, International Longshoremen’s Association, 
AFL-CIO (Galveston Maritime Association, Inc., et al.), 148 
NLRB 897, enfd. 368 F.2d 1010 (C.A. 5); Independent Metal 
Workers Union, Local No. 1 (Hughes Tool Company), 147 
NLRB 1573, where the Board held that discrimination based on 
racial considerations, when engaged in by a statutory bargain­
ing representative, constitutes inherently unfair representa­
tion.



16a

APPENDIX

NOTICE TO MEMBERS 
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

An Agency of the United States Government

WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause McCarty, 
Inc., and Armstrong Contracting and Supply Corpora­
tion, members of the Master Insulators Association, 
or any other employer, to discriminate against employ­
ees or prospective employees by refusing to hire them 
on the unlawful basis of union membership or main­
tain, perform, or enforce, by agreement or otherwise, 
any like or related arrangement in a manner whereby 
referrals to available jobs are based on the unlawful 
basis of union membership. If we continue to operate 
a hiring hall or arrangement, we will operate one that 
does not discriminate on the basis of union member­
ship.
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause McCarty, 
Inc., and Armstrong Contracting and Supply Corpora­
tion, members of the Master Insulators Association, 
or any other employer, to deny any employee over­
time, to lay off or transfer him, or to discriminate 
against him in any way, because of his nonunion status.

WE WILL NOT cause any employer to hire a union 
member because a nonmember is on a job if such hire 
results in the displacement of such nonmember.
WE WILL NOT threaten any employer with a strike, 
or with the withdrawal of skilled labor, for refusing



17a

to deny overtime, to lay off, or to otherwise discrim­
inate against a nonunion employee because of his non­
union status.

WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain 
or coerce nonmembers in the exercise of their rights 
as employees under Section 7 of the Act.

WE WILL pay to Paul A. Vogler, Jr., Juan B. Galaviz,

Leon Kerr, Horace D. Brown, Bill Wonzer, Qian Won­
zer, and Brooks Fullen, Jr., all the regular and over­
time wages they have lost since 1965 as a result of 
being replaced on overtime jobs by union members, 
plus 6 percent interest.

WE WILL credit Paul A. Vogler, Jr., Juan B. Galaviz, 
Leon Kerr, Horace D. Brown, Bill Wonzer, Olan Won­
zer, and Brooks Fullen, Jr., for application of the wel­
fare fund, with the number of hours they would have 
worked if they had not been discriminatorily laid off 
and/or transferred for applicability of the welfare 
fund.

WE WILL credit Paul A. Vogler, Jr., Juan B. Galaviz, 
Leon Kerr, Horace D. Brown, Bill Wonzer, Olan Won­
zer, and Brooks Fullen, Jr., with any contributions 
which Respondent may be required to make to the 
welfare fund and which these employees would have 
received but for the discrimination against them.

WE WILL keep full records of our nondiscriminat or y 
hiring hall and our welfare and pension funds and



18a

make s-uch records available to the Board for periodic 
inspection,

INTERNATIONAL 
ASSOCIATION OF HEAT 
AND FROST INSULATORS 
AND ABESTOS WORKERS 
LOCAL No. 53 
(Labor Organization)

D ated  ________ By —.---------------------- -------------------- —
(Representative) (Title)

THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT 
BE DEFACED BY ANYONE

This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive 
days from the date of posting and must not be altered, 
defaced, or covered by any other material.

Any questions concerning this Notice or compliance 
with its provisions may be directed to the Board’s Of­
fice, 701 Loyola Ave., New Orleans, Louisiana 70113, 
Telephone 504-527-6361.

TXD-743-68 
New Orleans, La.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
BEFORE THE

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 
DIVISION OF TRIAL EXAMINERS 

WASHINGTON, D. C.



19a

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HEAT AND 
FROST INSULATORS AND ASBESTOS WORKERS

LOCAL No. 53

arid Case No. 15-CB-775

PAULA. VOGLER, JR., an Individual

Alan L. Rolnick, Esq., and Thomas D. Johnston, Esq., 
for the General Counsel.

C. Paul Barker, Esq. (Dodd, Hirsch, Barker & Meu- 
nier) and Mr. Gerald O’Brien, of New Orleans, 
La., for the Respondent.

Mr. Paul A. Vogler, Jr., the Charging Party.

TRIAL EXAMINER’S DECISION

Statement of the Case

MARION C. LADWIG, Trial Examiner: This case 
was tried at New Orleans, Louisiana, on April 2-5 and 
8-10, 1968, pursuant to a charge filed on January 13, 
and amended February 11, 1966,’ by Paul A. Vogler, 
Jr., an employee of McCarty-Branton, Inc., herein 
called McCarty, against the Respondent, International 
Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos 
Workers Local No. 53, herein called the Union, and 
pursuant to a complaint issued June 2, 1967.

’All dates, unless otherwise indicated, are in the period from Octo­
ber 1965 to January 1966.



The Union, with a restricted membership of about 
260, was the recognized bargaining representative of 
about 1,200 insulator mechanics and helpers employed 
by McCarty, Armstrong Contracting and Supply Cor­
poration, herein called Armstrong, and the other insu­
lation contractors in the Master Insulators Association 
of New Orleans & Baton Rouge, La., Inc., herein called 
the Association. The primary issues are whether the 
Union was a party to an oral understanding, arrange­
ment, and practice which gave priority in employment 
to union members, and whether the Union caused the 
contractors discriminatorily to deny overtime employ­
ment to Vogler and five other nonmember “permit 
men,” and to transfer and/or lay them off, in violation 
of Section 8(b) (2) and (1) (A) of the National Labor 
Relations Act, as amended.

Upon the entire record,2 including my observation 
of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after due con­
sideration of the briefs filed by the General Counsel 
and the Union, I make the following:

Findings of Fact

I. The Business of the Employers and 
the Labor Organization Involved

McCarty and Armstrong each was a Louisiana cor­
poration, with its principal place of business in New 
Orleans, Louisiana, and was engaged in the insulation 
contracting business, receiving annually goods and 
materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from out­

2The General Counsel’s motion to correct the record, dated October 
8, 1968, is granted and the record is corrected accordingly.



21a

side the State. The Union admits, and I find, that Mc­
Carty and Armstrong was each engaged in commerce 
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, 
and that the Union is a labor organization within the 
meaning of the Act, The Union also admits that Mc­
Carty, Inc., has been the successor of McCarty since 
June 30, I960, and that the Association, composed of 
about 12 employers in the New Orleans and Baton 
Rouge area, represents the employer members in the 
negotiation and administration of collective-bargain­
ing agreements with the Union.

II. The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices

A. Background

In 1957 when Gerald W. O’Brien was elected busi­
ness agent, the Union had a membership of “a little 
over 200,” and only 120 jobs. By the fall of 1965, during 
a boom in industrial construction and following Hurri­
cane Betsy, there were around 1,200 jobs in the New 
Orleans and Baton Rouge area, and a critical shortage 
of qualified insulators. The Union, with restrictive 
membership policies, then had about 260 members.

This case arose in January 1966, when insulator me­
chanic Paul A. Vogler, Jr., filed a charge against the 
Union, alleging that it was discriminating against non­
union employees. Thereafter, and before issuance of 
the complaint herein, the United States District Court 
for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans Di­
vision, in Civil Actions No. 66-749 (Paul Vogler, Jr. 
and Casimer Joseph, III v. McCarty, Inc., and the Un­
ion), and No. 66-833 (United States of America,



2.2a

by Ramsey Clark, Attorney General v. Local. 53 of the 
International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators 
and Asbestos Workers) held a hearing on January 19-20 
and 24, 1987, concerning alleged violations of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964. On May 31, 1968, the Court issued 
a temporary injunction (which remained in effect at 
the time of trial of the present case), enjoining racial 
discrimination in membership requirements and re­
ferrals. The Court did not have before it the unfair 
labor practices discussed herein, and therefore did not 
rule upon them. (The Union’s motions to dismiss and 
not to rule, filed in the present proceeding, are denied 
for lack of merit.)

B. The Illegal Hiring Procedure

The evidence is undisputed that although there was 
no mention of a hiring or referral procedure in the 
Association-Union collective-bargaining agreement 
during the period in question (the fall and winter of 
1965-1966), McCarty, Armstrong and the other employ­
er members of the Association followed the practice 
of securing their insulator mechanics and “improvers” 
(helpers or apprentices) from the Union. Under this 
practice, “card men” (members of the Union) were 
permitted to solicit their own jobs and to work without 
union referrals, and were given first preference by 
the Union in making referrals to the contractors. When 
a sufficient number of card men was unavailable to 
supply a contractor’s request for applicants, the Union 
gave second preference to “travelers” (members of 
other locals of the same International) who, like card 
men, paid dues to the Union. When additional employ­
ees were needed, the Union would either refer non­



23a

members, or give referrals to persons sent to the union 
hall by the contractor. These nonmember “permit 
men” paid no dues.

There was undisputed testimony that the contractors 
orally agreed to this long-standing hiring and referral 
procedure in order to have access to qualified insulator 
mechanics. However, the undisputed evidence also 
shows that preference was given on the basis of union 
membership, not on the basis of ability, residence, etc. 
Even those union members who were considered un­
satisfactory as employees were given preference over 
those nonmembers who were highly skilled, long ex­
perienced, and highly regarded as employees — de­
spite their inability to join the Union.

It is clear that the Union, in being a party to this 
oral understanding, arrangement, and practice, of giv­
ing preference in referrals and hirings on the basis 
of union membership, violated Section 8(b) (2) and 
(1) (A) of the Act.

C. Discrimination against Permit Men 

1. Overtime denied Bill and Qian Wonzer

Under the collective-bargaining agreement, all work 
outside the regular 8 hours a day, Monday through 
Friday, was overtime, at double pay.

On October 28, when Armstrong’s job at the Ameri­
can Cyanamid plant went on an overtime basis, all 
five of the mechanics on the job were permit men. 
They began working 2 hours a day overtime, raising



24a

their daily wage from $34.80 (8 hours @  $4.35) to $52.20 
(8 hours plus 2 hours @  $8.70).

The next week, 11 mechanics were added to the job. 
These included two card men, two travelers, permit 
men Bill and Olan Wonzer, and another permit man, 
hired on Wednesday, November 3. The four others 
hired later that week were a permit man hired 
on Thursday, and a permit man and two travelers on 
Friday. (Concerning these last two persons, the parties 
agreed what one was a traveler, but questioned wheth­
er the other was a traveler or a permit man. From 
all the evidence, I find that both were travelers.)

On Friday, November 5 (their third day on the job), 
permit men Bill and Olan Wonzer asked Foreman 
Charles Feraci if they could work that weekend. Feraci 
(according to the Wonzers’ undisputed testimony) an­
swered no, the overtime was reserved for the card 
men only. That weekend, Bill and Olan Wonzer, and 
the five other permit mechanics then remaining on 
the job, did not work. (I note that one of these five 
permit men, Barney Jordan, worked as a superintend­
ent on this job on December 11-12 and 17-19.) However, 
both card men and all four of the travelers on the 
job did work that Saturday, November 6, as did six 
mechanics who worked elsewhere during the week. 
These latter six were all card men, except permit man 
Paul McCarthy who was permitted to join the Union 
shortly thereafter. (In some instances, permit helpers 
were permitted to work overtime when permit me­
chanics were not. All travelers were mechanics, and 
at least 90 percent of the “improvers” in the Union



25a

were upgraded to mechanics.)

There is no direct evidence that the job steward, 
card man Charles Kraemer, participated in this dis­
crimination against the permit men on the job. How­
ever, permit man Vogler (who was then working a- 
cross the road on the- McCarty job at the American 
Cyanamid plant) credibly testified that one day in the 
latter part of October, steward Kraemer came to the 
McCarty job, seeking mechanics to work overtime. 
Vogler volunteered, but the McCarty job steward, 
James Lawrence, told Kraemer, “No, no, he is a per­
mit man.” Kraemer told Vogler, “Well, I can’t use 
you then.” (Vogler believed that this work was to be 
performed during the evening, but the Armstrong pay­
roll records show that 10 hours of overtime was per­
formed on Saturday, October 29, by 10 mechanics, in­
cluding General Foreman Michael Marino from the 
McCarty job. All 10 were card men, except Paul Mc­
Carthy, mentioned above.) Permit man Vogler also 
credibly testified that sometime around Thanksgiving, 
he saw some of the mechanics leaving the McCarty 
job to work overtime on the weekend “up the river” 
at Little Gypsy. Vogler again volunteered, but job ste­
ward Lawrence refused, saying, “No, we don’t need 
any men, just card men going up there.” (I discredit 
Lawrence’s denial that he had anything to do with the 
assigning of overtime. He did not impress me as a 
trustworthy witne s s.)

Despite the lack of direct evidence that job steward 
Kraemer participated in the November 6 discrimina­
tion against the permit men in the assignment of week­
end overtime, I draw an inference that the job steward



26a

did on that occasion, as did he and other union repre­
sentatives on other occasions (as herein found), carry 
out the union policy, discussed hereafter, of inducing 
employers to give preference to card men in the as­
signment of overtime. Accordingly I find that the1 Un­
ion violated Section 8(b) (2) and (1) (A) by causing 
Armstrong to deny overtime employment to permit 
men Bill Wonzer and Olan Wonzer on November 6 and 
thereafter.

2. Layoff of Bill and Olan Wonzer

The following week, Armstrong hired two travelers 
on Monday (November 8), two on Tuesday, and two 
on Wednesday, and a card man on Thursday — totaling 
six new travelers and one new card man on the job. 
On Friday (November 12) the four permit mechanics 
on the job were laid off, because of “No1 work.” (The 
payroll records show that the fifth permit man, Barney 
Jordan, “worked on another job during week.” ) The 
employees were still working 10-hour days. Thus, after 
2 weeks of overtime on the job, the 5 permit mechanics 
had been replaced with 3 card men and 10 travelers. 
The following week, four of the travelers (Tillman, 
Galloway, Williams, and Lose) were laid off because 
of “No work,” and one (Logan) quit — leaving three 
card men and five travelers on the job, and no permit 
mechanics.

Before considering what permit men Bill and Olan 
Wonzer were advised on the day of their layoff, I note 
that this apparent “loading down” on the job with card 
men and travelers, until the permit men were laid off, 
was not an isolated occurrence. First, as discussed



27a

below in connection with the McCarty job, Union Busi­
ness Agent O’Brien admitted that he sent two card 
men out to a job, and that the foreman “told me that 
he never ordered the two men.” O’Brien responded, 
“Well, try and make room for them, because I do un­
derstand t-hat you have a couple of permit men left 
on that job.” O’Brien later testified, “I always request 
a foreman to give the first consideration to our mem­
bers; those are the ones I represent and who pay my 
salary.” He admitted that a “lot of times” he would 
ask the foreman “about using our members for over­
time,” and that “Most of the time” this was in response 
to “pressure” from his members. Secondly, a union 
witness, McCarty Field Superintendent Salvadore Gen­
ovese, testified that “It has been a practice that as 
long as you have a permit man there, a card man 
can come on that job,” and that if there are extra 
card men on the job, the permit men “are the first 
ones to get laid off.” “That has always been the prac­
tice,” because card men “are dues paying members 
of the Local.” Thirdly, Association President James 
Poche credibly testified that during his company’s job 
at the American Cyanamid ammonia plant, Business 
Agent O’Brien on occasions would tell him, “Jim, you 
know you have got some permit men on the job and 
I have got a couple of card men.” Poche would refuse 
to replace the permit men with card men, but later 
would find that, contrary to company policy, the job 
steward and the foreman (both card men) had 
replaced the permit men with card men. Poche added 
that “this is a practice that we know of; we don’t take 
part in it; it is strictly a union function.”



28a

Returning to the Armstrong job, on the morning of 
the Wonzers’ November 12 layoff (according to their 
u n d i s p u t e d  testimony), the Union’s job steward, 
Charles Kraemer, told them “that he had had a call 
from the business agent [O’Brien] about all permit 
men and not to go to work until he had a chance to 
call him back.” A few minutes later, steward Kraemer 
told them, “you all go ahead and go to work, that it 
will be1 around 8:30 o’clock before I can get ahold of 
the business agent.” Later that morning, the steward 
told them that they would be laid off that afternoon, 
but that they could finish the day. They were laid off 
that afternoon. Their work was satisfactory — the fore­
man having complimented them for doing “real good” 
work.

After considering all the evidence and the circum­
stances, including the job steward’s actions on the 
morning of the layoffs, I find that the General Counsel 
has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that 
the Union caused the discriminatory layoff of these 
two permit men — even if the union steward had not 
been an agent of the Union and his statements are 
not considered for their truthfulness. This finding is 
supported by the fact that, as argued by the General 
Counsel, the Union “introduced no testimony to rebut 
General Counsel’s prima facie case.”

Moreover, the evidence establishes that the job 
steward was the Union’s agent. In Business Agent 
O’Brien’s words, the job steward “is my policeman 
on the job.” In view of all the circumstances, I find 
that the statements made by steward Kraemer are 
properly considered as admissions against the Union’s



29a

interest, and that the Union induced the contractor to 
lay off the permit men because of their nonunion stat­
us.

Accordingly, I find that the Union caused Armstrong 
on November 12 to lay off Bill and Olan Wonzer dis- 
criminatorily, in violation of Section 8(b) (2) and (1) 
(A) of the Act.

3. Transfer of permit men from overtime job

Another overtime job was the McCarty job at the 
American Cyanamid plant. There the employees were 
usually working 10 hours a day, Monday through Fri­
day, until late December, when weekend overtime be­
gan.

a. Implied threat of work stoppage

Sometime in December, Business Agent O’Brien 
went to the McCarty jobsite and talked to Vice Presi­
dent Tom Branton, Field Superintendent Salvador 
Genovese, and Engineer Bill Cobb concerning the em­
ployment of card men on the job and the distribution 
of overtime. (Although Branton remembered the visit 
having occurred earlier in December, I find that it 
occurred sometime after December 14, when the last 
permit mechanic, Leon Kerr, was referred by the Un­
ion and hired on the job.) According to Branton’s 
credited testimony, O’Brien told them that “ his mem­
bership would be given preference on that job” over 
permit men and travelers “as long as there was over­
time available . . . .  The gist of the conversation was 
either that the Union was assured that the member­



30a

ship would be given preference to the overtime on the 
job, or that we would not have men on any job. My 
answer was that if this be the case, we ask only for 
one consideration and that was that we be advised as 
soon as possible the intent to send any men to that 
particular job, so that we might prepare, as best we 
could, for that membership.” (Emphasis supplied.) 
When called as a union witness, Superintendent Geno­
vese denied being present when Vice President Bran- 
ton and Business Agent O’Brien discussed overtime 
on the job, but later admitted that he was present when 
“Mr. O’Brien told Mr. Branton, as long as we had per­
mit men on this job, any time a card man showed 
up at the gate, we would have to put him to work.” 
As indicated above, Genovese also testified that when 
there are extra men on the job, the permit men are 
“the first ones to get laid off.” (I discredit O’Brien’s 
denial that he threatened to shut down the job if his 
members did not make the overtime, and his claim 
that it was months earlier, before the overtime began, 
when he met with Branton and Genovese and said that 
“when this job goes overtime, I would like to see Local 
53 members making the overtime.” )

b. Transfer of permit men

On Monday, December 27, the permit mechanics on 
the job were Vogler, Kerr, Horace D. Brown, and 
Brooks Fullen, Jr. (plus Juan B. Galaviz, who* had been 
granted a leave of absence). On Tuesday, two travelers 
were sent to the job. On Wednesday, one card man 
was sent, and on Thursday, two additional card men. 
In the meantime, on that Wednesday, December 29,



31a

McCarty transferred permit men Kerr and Brown to 
a straight-time job. That left Vogler and Fullen as the 
only permit mechanics then working on the overtime 
job. On Friday, December 31, McCarty transferred 
Fullen to a straight-time job, and transferred Vogler 
(with Galaviz) to the International Trade Mart, anoth­
er straight-time job.

Business Agent O’Brien admitted that sometime that 
month, “I believe I sent .. .  two card men out to the 
[McCarty] job and [General Foreman Michael Mari­
no] told me that he never ordered the two men, and 
I said, ‘Well, try and make room for them, because 
I do understand that you have a couple of permit men 
left on that job.’ ” He also admitted telling Marino 
that Marino ought to talk to Field Superintendent Gen­
ovese “about the possibility” of transferring the “two 
permit men that were on the job.” (The payroll records 
show that the last week in December was the only 
time during the month when such remarks would have 
been applicable.) O’Brien testified that it was his nor­
mal duties to try to secure the best overtime opportuni­
ties for his members, that “I always request a foreman 
to give the first consideration to our members; those 
are the ones I represent and who pay my salary,” 
and that “Most of the time,” it was in response to 
some pressure from his members when he spoke to 
the foreman about getting some card men on an over­
time job. (In his January 10, 1967, deposition given 
in the district court proceeding, Business Agent 
O’Brien made further admissions. He testified, “I sent 
a pair one day and a couple of days later I sent another 
pair. Mike [Marino] called and said that he hadn’t



32a

ordered anybody, and I said, ‘Mike, as long as you 
got overtime on that job, they are going to bother me 
to death, so why don’t you transfer two- permit 
men?’ ” )

General Foreman Marino finally admitted that there 
had been such a conversation in which Business Agent 
O’Brien “said that he had been having complaints that 
a lot of the card men wanted the overtime jobs, and 
it would save a lot of confusion and trouble, if [the 
permit men] would be transferred,” and that O’Brien 
“had sent a few men out . . .  so I just assigned the 
two men or the four men, whatever it was . . .  and 
put them to work.” (When claiming that this conversa­
tion occurred weeks earlier, Marino appeared to be 
attempting to support his prior answers, which I dis­
credit, that in late December, he did not get a telephone 
call from Business Agent O’Brien concerning permit 
men on the job, or putting on card men, or about over­
time, or transferring the permit men.)

On Sunday, January 2 (the first weekend after 
2 travelers and 3 card men were sent to the job for 
the overtime, and 5 permit men were transferred to 
straight-time jobs), 16 travelers and card men on the 
job, and 6 card men transferred in for the 1 day, each 
worked 10 hours of overtime. No permit mechanic was 
left on the job. On the two succeeding weekends, the 
employees worked both Saturday and Sunday. (The 
overtime wage for a mechanic working 10 hours on 
Sunday was $87, and for working 10 hours on both Sat­
urday and Sunday was $174 — the same pay as for 
40 hours a week on a straight-time job. I discredit Gen­



33a

eral Foreman Marino’s claim that permit man Vogler 
“volunteered” to be transferred to the ITM job.)

Marino admitted that Vogler, Galaviz, Kerr, and 
Brown did satisfactory work. Vogler has been an in­
sulator mechanic since 1941; Galaviz has worked in 
the trade for about 19 years; Kerr has been a mechanic 
4 years; and Brown has been an insulator 10 years.

Apart from all other evidence, the above demon­
strates that the Union induced McCarty to transfer 
the permit men from the overtime job because of their 
lack of union membership, and in order to give prefer­
ence to union members in the assignment of overtime. 
(Without explanation, the General Counsel failed to 
name Fullen as one of the discriminatees. I therefore 
make no findings as to him.)

c. Corroborating evidence

There is much credible evidence corroborating the 
discriminatory inducements.

Permit man Kerr, who was transferred on December 
29, credibly testified that General Foreman Marino 
“ came around and said that he was going to have to 
transfer us to another job, that they had to make room 
for the card men.” Kerr asked if it was “because of 
poor work or anything,” and Markin answered, “No, 
I am real satisfied with your work. It is something 
that I have to do . . . . ” Similarly permit man Brown, 
who was also transferred on December 29, credibly 
testified that Marino “told us .. .  he was transferring 
us to another job. He said that he had to make room



34a

for the card men.” Marino had told them, that there 
would be more overtime on the job. (I discredit Mari­
no’s denial that there was not any way in late Decem­
ber of knowing whether the job “was going on over­
time.” )

Vogler, who was transferred on December 31, credi­
bly testified that both General Foreman Marino and 
Field Superintendent Genovese told him that Business 
Agent O’Brien said that they had to get the permit 
men off the job, and that he complained, stating that 
this was not fair.

On Saturday, January 1, the day after Vogler and 
Galaviz were transferred to the ITM job, Galaviz tele­
phoned Marino' who (in Galaviz’ words) “told me that 
they were having trouble with the local . . .  that he 
had to transfer me from the American Cyanamid job 
to the International Trade Mart job, with Mr. Vogler, 
because he had been instructed to lay off all of the 
permit men.” Galaviz also credibly testified that Mari­
no “wanted to know why I had not come back, that 
they needed me, they wanted me to come back. And 
he had told Mr. Vogler several times to tell me to 
come back.” (General Foreman Marino had given Gal­
aviz a leave of absence on December 3, to visit his 
sick father-in-law in Texas. Instead of returning in a- 
bout a week as planned, Galaviz had worked on an 
overtime job for a while in Texas before deciding to 
return. I discredit Marino’s denial that he had given 
Galaviz a leave of absence, and also- his testimony — 
which was contrary to McCarty’s payroll records — 
that Galaviz had quit. Marino testified that he “possi­



bly” could have placed Galaviz back on the job if he 
had been a card man.)

In his brief, the General Counsel “respectfully sub­
mits that Marino’s primary allegiance was to his Un­
ion, and, in carrying out the general union policy of 
discriminating against permit men, Marino’s actions 
and comments, made in his agency capacity, are bind­
ing on the Union,” citing such cases as Local 1016, 
United Brotherhood of Carpenters etc. (Booher Lum­
ber Co., Inc.), 117 NLRB 1739, 1744 (1957). The evidence 
shows that Marino is an active member of the Union 
and a former vice president, and had been a member 
of the union executive board for 3 years, until Novem­
ber 1964. When testifying about the union obligations 
of foremen members, Business Agent O’Brien testified 
that “They have sworn under oath when they become 
a member to look out for the welfare of their brother 
members,” that they are subject to union charges, and 
that when the Union sends a man from the hall without 
a “call-in” for men and there is an excess of men 
on the job, the foreman is “expected” to “make room 
for them.”' Marino admitted that since he became a 
foreman, he has been directed to appear before the 
executive board. Also in connection with the control 
the Union exercises over the foremen members, I note 
that in the minutes of the March 18, 1966, union mem­
bership meeting, a motion was passed “that all fore­
men send to Union office copy of time sheet.” I agree 
with the General Counsel’s contention, and find that 
General Foreman Marino’s statements are properly 
considered as admissions by the Union. (I find it unnec­
essary to rule on the General Counsel’s further conten­



36a

tion that Field Superintendent Genovese — a former 
union official who has a current union membership 
withdrawal card and who likewise is subject to union 
discipline — also acted in a dual-agency capacity, rep­
resenting both McCarty and the Union.)

However, with or without this corroborating evi­
dence, I find that the Union induced McCarty to trans­
fer Kerr and Brown on December 29, and Vogler and 
Galaviz on December 31, from the overtime job 
to straight-time jobs because of their nonunion status 
and in order to provide more overtime for union mem­
bers, and induced McCarty to deny overtime employ­
ment to Kerr and Brown on and after December 30, 
to Vogler on and after January 2, and to Galaviz after 
January 2, in violation of Section 8(b) (2) and (1) (A) 
of the Act.

4. Layoff of Vogler and Galaviz

On Monday morning, January 3, permit men Vogler 
and Galaviz reported to work on the “inside” ITM job, 
which was sclieduled by McCarty to last several 
months. However on Wednesday, January 5, McCarty 
Field Superintendent Genovese laid them, off, and Busi­
ness Agent O’Brien admittedly refused to refer them 
to other jobs.

At one point, Business Agent O’Brien testified:

Q. In the conversation with Mr. Genovese 
concerning Vogler and Galaviz, did you 
say to Mr. Genovese, “Tell them if they 
are not satisfied with the job, get off of it?

A. Right. Yes sir.



37a

Q. And, “I told Sal if they ain’t satisfied with 
the job, get rid of them?”

A. Right. Yes, s ir ----
Similarly in the injunction proceeding, he testified 

on January 10, 1987:

A. . . .  Genovese called me and complained 
about these two never being satisfied with 
forty hours, that they were mad because 
they ŵ ere moved off the overtime job . . . .
So . .. when Sal called me, he sounded up­
set that these guys are never satisfied. All 
they’re looking for is overtime . . . .  So I 
told Sal, “If they ain’t satisfied with the 
job, run them, get rid of them.” .. .

Despite these admissions, which I credit, Business 
Agent O’Brien denied inducing Genovese to lay off the 
two permit men. Concerning what happened that week, 
O’Brien and other union witnesses gave highly conflict­
ing and implausible versions which, because of their 
content and because of the demeanor of the witnesses 
on the stand, I find to have been largely fabrications.

After considering all the credible evidence, I find 
that Business Agent O’Brien instructed Field Superin­
tendent Genovese to lay off the two permit men, not 
only because of the above-quoted reason stated by 
O’Brien, but also because of at least one additional 
discriminatory reason: card men were complaining 
that they had been “rained out” that week on outside 
construction jobs while these two permit men were 
working on the “inside” ITM job. I also find that neith­



38a

er of them would have been laid off if they had been 
working as card men instead of as permit men.

Accordingly, I find that on January 5, the Union in­
duced McCarty discriminatorily to lay off Vogler and 
Galaviz, in violation of Section 8(b) (2) and (1) (A) 
of the Act.

D. Other Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Union engaged in vio­
lations of the Act through racial discrimination. How­
ever, under the circumstances of this case, I deem 
it proper, as a matter of comity between branches of 
the federal government, not to rule on these additional 
matters which apparently are similar to the racial is­
sues before the U.S. District Court.

The complaint also alleges that from January 5 until 
about August 1966, the Union refused to refer Vogler 
because of his nonunion status. However, inasmuch 
a:s the remedy for such a violation would be cumula­
tive, I find it unnecessary to rule on the allegation.

Conclusions of Law

1. By causing McCarty, Armstrong, and other em­
ployer members of the Association, through a discrim­
inatory oral understanding, arrangement, and prac­
tice, to give priority in employment to union members 
in violation of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, the Union 
has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting com­
merce within the meaning of Section 8(b) (2) and (1) 
(A) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.



39a

2. By causing Armstrong discriminatorily to deny 
overtime to Bill Wonzer and Olan Wonzer on and after 
November 6, and to lay them off on November 12, be­
cause of their nonunion status, the Union violated Sec­
tion 8(b) (2) and (1) (A) of the Act.

3. By causing McCarty discriminatorily to transfer 
Kerr and Brown on December 29, and Yogler and Gal- 
aviz on December 31, to deny them overtime there­
after, and to lay off Yogler and Galaviz on January 
5, because of their nonunion status, the Union violated 
Section 8(b) (2) arid (1) (A) of the Act.

The Remedy

Having a policy of not charging “permit men” any 
dues, the Respondent has openly and flagrantly violat­
ed the Section 7 rights of this large group of nonmem­
bers which it represents, by causing the insulation con­
tractors to give preference to dues-paying members 
in hirings, assignment of overtime, transfers, and lay­
offs, on the basis of union membership. As a result, 
permit mechanics Vogler, Galaviz, Kerr, Brown, and 
Bill and Olan Wonzer were denied overtime (at double 
pay) and laid off or transferred from overtime jobs 
because of their nonunion status. This occurred during 
an employment boom (following Hurricane Betsy, a 
large influx of industrial work in the area in 1965, and 
increased commercial work in the area since then), 
and during a period of a labor shortage, when the con­
tractors were attempting to retain qualified insulators 
by transferring them from job to job. Consequently, 
when the Respondent induced the contractors to re­



40a

place the permit men because of their nonmembership, 
it deprived the permit men of virtually full-time em­
ployment in the area, plus the overtime when required. 
Because of these circumstances, I find that the mere 
payment of earnings lost on the particular jobs 
to which these six employees were assigned at the time 
of the discrimination would not make them whole or 
provide an effectual remedy. In order to vindicate 
these employees’ Section 7 rights, and to make them 
whole, I find it essential for the Respondent to be or­
dered to pay them for all regular and overtime wages 
lost, from the dates of the discrimination to the time 
the notice required herein is posted, as a result of the 
discrimination induced by the Respondent, preventing 
the respective contractors from continuing to employ 
them, and to transfer them from job to job, as needed. 
Such loss of earnings shall be computed in the manner 
set forth in F. W. Woolworth Com.pany, 90 NLRB 289, 
with interest at 6 percent per annum as provided in 
Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.

The Respondent must also be ordered to cease and 
desist from various unfair labor practices found, and 
to take other affirmative action, which I also' find nec­
essary to remedy and to remove the effect of the unfair 
labor practices and to effectuate the policies of the 
Act. Because of the U. S, District Court’s prior injunc­
tion, regulating the operation of the Respondent’s hir­
ing hall, I shall not make any recommendation con­
cerning a remedy for the discriminatory oral under­
standing, arrangement, and practice, giving priority 
in employment and referrals on the basis of union 
membership.



41a

Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing findings 
and conclusions, and on the entire record, I recom­
mend pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, issuance 
of the following:

ORDER

Respondent, International Association of Heat and 
Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers Local No, 53, 
its officers, agents, representatives, and successors, 
shall:

1. Cease and desist from

(a) Causing or attempting to cause McCarty, 
Inc., Armstrong Contracting and Supply Corporation, 
members of the Master Insulators Association, or any 
other employer, to deny any employee overtime, to 
lay off or transfer him, or to discriminate against him 
in any way, because of his nonunion status.

(b) Causing any employer to hire a union mem­
ber because a nonmember is on a job.

(c) Threatening any employer with a strike, or 
with the withdrawal of skilled labor, for refusing to 
deny overtime, to lay off, or otherwise discriminate 
against a nonunion employee because of his nonunion 
status.

(d) In any like or related manner restraining or 
coercing nonmembers in the exercise of their rights 
as employees under Section 7 of the Act.



2. Take the following affirmative action necessary 
to effectuate the policies of the Act:

(a) Make whole Paul A. Vogler, Jr., Juan B. Gal- 
aviz, Leon Kerr, Horace D. Brown, Bill Wonzer, and 
Olan Wonzer, as provided in the section of the Trial 
Examiner’s Decision entitled “The Remedy.”

(b) Post in the Respondent’s business offices and 
meeting halls copies of the notice attached hereto and 
marked Appendix.3 Copies of such notice on forms pro­
vided by the Regional Director for Region 15, after 
being duly signed by an authorized representative of 
the Respondent, shall be posted immediately upon re­
ceipt thereof, and he maintained for 60 consecutive 
days thereafter. Copies shall be posted in conspicuous 
places, within clear view of all persons seeking refer­
rals by the Respondent, and all persons entering the 
Respondent’s hiring1 halls. Reasonable steps shall be 
taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices 
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other ma­
terial. Upon request of the Regional Director, Respond­
ent shall supply, him with a sufficient number of signed 
copies for posting by McCarty, Inc., Armstrong Con­
tracting and Supply Corporation, and members of the 
Master Insulators Association of New Orleans & Baton 
Rouge, La., Inc., if desired by them.

slf this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words 
“ a Decision and Order” shall be substituted for the words “ the 
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner” in the notice. In 
the further event that the Board’s Order is enforced by a decree 
of a United States Court of Appeals, the words “a Decree of 
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order” shall 
be substituted for the words “a Decision and Order.”



(c) Notify the Regional Director of Region 15, in 
writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt 
of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken 
to comply herewith,4

It is also ordered that the complaint be dismissed 
insofar as it alleges any violation of the Act not spe­
cifically found herein.

Dated at Washington, D. C.

(Signed) MARION C. LADWIG 
Marion c. Ladwig 
Trial Examiner

APPENDIX

NOTICE
TO ALL MEMBERS OF

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HEAT AND 
FROST INSULATORS AND ASBESTOS WORKERS

LOCAL No. 53 
Pursuant To

The Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the 
National Labor Relations Board 

and in order to effectuate the policies of the 
National Labor Relations Act 

(As Amended) 
we hereby notify you that:

4In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the 
Board, this provision shall be modified to read: ‘Notify the
Regional Director for Region 15, in writing, within 10 days 
from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to 
comply herewith.”



44a

WE WILL PAY to these permit men all the 
regular and overtime wages they have lost 
since 1965 as a result of being replaced on over­
time jobs by union members (plus 6 percent 
interest)

Paul A. Vogler, Jr. Bill Wonzer 
Juan B. Galaviz Horace D. Brown
Leon Kerr Olan Wonzer

WE WILL NOT induce any contractor to deny 
overtime to any employee because he is not a 
union member.

WE WILL NOT induce any contractor to trans­
fer any employee because he is not a union 
member.

WE WILL NOT induce any contractor to hire a 
union member because a nonmember is on the 
job.

WE WILL NOT induce any contractor to lay off 
a permit man, becuase he lacks union mem­
bership, before laying off a card man or travel­
er.

WE WILL NOT threaten to strike any contrac­
tor for refusing to deny permit men overtime, 
or to transfer or lay them, off first, because of 
nonmembership in the Union.



INTERNATIONAL 
ASSOCIATION OF HEAT 
AND FROST INSULATORS 
AND ASBESTOS WORKERS 
LOCAL No. 53 
(Labor Organization)

Dated__________ By _____________ __________ _
(Representative) (Title)

This Notice must remain posted for 60' consecutive 
days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, 
defaced, or covered by any other material.

If members have any question concerning this Notice 
or compliance with its provisions, they may communi­
cate directly with the Board’s Regional Office, T8024 
Federal Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola Avenue, New 
Orleans, La. 70113, Tel. No. (504) 527-6391.



Scofields’ Quality Printers, Inc. —  New Orleans, La.