Masonry Magazine January 1974 Page.28
Perlite
Filled Cavities
Conserve Energy.
Heat transmission can be reduced by 50% or more when silicone treated perlite loose fill insulation is poured into the hollow cores of concrete block or cavity type masonry walls. In fact, cavity walls of face brick and tile show a 63% reduction! But that's not all. Silicone treated perlite loose fill insulation is water repellent-indefinitely.
Specs call for a concrete block wall? Perlite loose fill insulation can help too! By filling the core holes with perlite loose fill insulation your fire rating will be doubled to 4 hours and your "U" factor improved by 54%. And you don't have to worry about permanence. Silicone treated perlite is inorganic and rot, vermin and termite proof. And it's non-combustible with its fusion point of 2300°F.
Even a veneer wall of brick and concrete block can show a 52% improvement in insulating value when filled with loose fill perlite. Don't worry about settling -silicone treated perlite supports its own weight in the wall without settling and it's easy to handle too! Thanks to its countless glass-like cells it's light-weight and easily poured. It's quick-it's inexpensive and it's permanent-the perfect material for insulating masonry walls.
Perlite Institute, Inc.
45 West 45th Street
New York, N. Y. 10036 212-265-2145
MCAA Information
(Continued from page 27)
4. Employer Practice
The Employer's consistent and unbroken practice has been to assign the disputed work to its own employees represented for collective bargaining by the Bricklayers. It is also the Employer's practice to assign any auxiliary or related work to its employees represented by the Laborers Union, who serve to assist the Bricklayers. Accordingly, this factor favors an award to employees represented by the Bricklayers.
5. Area and Industry Practice
The principal witness for the Employer, Turner Smith, Jr., president and majority stockholder, has been engaged in the masonry contracting industry for over 23 years and has performed construction work throughout many of the southern states. He testified that he has never assigned any part of the duties of installing prefabricated, nonstructural masonry wall panels to the Iron Workers. Smith further testified that he believes that, as regards the Houston area, his subject work assignments to the Bricklayers are consistent with the prevailing area practice.
On the other hand, C. Laird, Iron Workers business agent, during his testimony graphically identified, through the windows of the hearing room, various downtown Houston buildings, either completed or under construction, where the work in dispute" assertedly was performed by composite crews of iron-workers and bricklayers, presumably in conformity with the 1962 agreement between the two Unions. However, there is countervailing record evidence which leads us to conclude that this 1962 agreement frequently does not control the work-assignment practices relating to precast wall panels in the Houston area."
Consequently, on the basis of the equivocal state of the record concerning pertinent area work-assignment practices, we find that this factor is inconclusive as a determinant of the dispute.
6. Relative Skills and Efficiency of Operation
It is clear from the record that bricklayers possess all of the requisite skills for capably performing the disputed work of unloading, stockpiling, and erecting precast or preassembled brick or other masonry wall panels. As previously described, these panels are attached to the structure by means of a mortar base with clip angle and are welded or bolted at the top, and the bricklayers, according to the Employer, have always accomplished such work satisfactorily.
As for the ironworkers, it also appears that they are capable of performing that part of the disputed work they claim. Thus, we find that the factor of comparative skills between employees represented by each of these two Unions favors neither the Iron Workers nor the Bricklayers as an element in our determination of this jurisdictional dispute.
According to the Employer, the firm regularly employs between 40 to 50 bricklayers year round and considerably smaller numbers of laborers and operating engineers on the same basis. The Employer does not employ any ironworkers. The record shows that since the Employer is a masonry subcontractor, the bricklayers, when not directly engaged in the disputed work of installing preassembled wall panels, are available to execute
10. The record is not clear as to whether mortar was used in pinioning the panels to the buildings pointed out by Laird.
11. See, e.g., Laird's testimony concerning Amtex Erectors and Riggers which apparently employs ironworkers exclusively to do all of the disputed work. Also, H. Brown, Local 7 Bricklayers business agent, testified that neither of these Local Unions faithfully complied with the 1962 agreement because of the absence of enforcement machinery. Consequently, it appears that these work-assignments are determined by the rapport each Local Union has with various area employers, in addition to other ad hoc factors.
12. Although the Iron Workers contends that the erection process would be completed with greater safety if iron-workers were involved, the record does not contain sufficient evidence to sustain this contention.