b"Page5 bycompanieswhoweresupplyingthematerialforthedeck. 11 Withinthelasttwoorthreeyears,thesituation haschanged somewhatandnowwefindthatvermiculitedecksarebeingappli.edonly byfranchisedapplicatorsundertheinspectionofrepresentati.vesof thecompaniessupplyingtheVermiculite;andthatasaresultofthis tighteningupoftheapplicationprocedures,therehasbeenamarked improvementinsuchdecks.Whileit isstillthepolicyoftheFlintkoteCompanytorequirealetterfromthesupplier of materialsfor poured-in-placelightweightdecks,wehavefoundanincreasingreadinesstoacceptresponsibilityshouldthedeckberesponsibleforfailureof theroof.Wefeelthatconsiderableprogresshadbeenmadeby thereputablecompaniesinthedeckbusinessinmeetingtheir responsibility;andin fulfillingtheir .obligationstotheowneraswellas thecompanyissuingabondontheroofappliedoverthelr particular deck. 11 Answerstootherquestionsposedatthisforumwillbepublished inlater Bulletins. DisputewithOperatingEngineersDecidedinFavorof MissouriRoofingCo. Ourhatis offtoJohnReuter,whosecompany,MissouriRoofing Company,St.Louis,Missouri,hasrecentlywonasignificantdecision beforetheNationalLaborRelationsBoard.Mr.ReuterisPresident ofNationalRoofingContractorsAssociationandamanwhohasthe courageof hisconvictions. ThedisputearosewhentheOperatingEngineers 'localunion cl.aimedtherighttooperatepoweredmechanicalhoistsusedby MissouriRoofing .OnbeingrefusedthisworkbyMr.Reuter,the OperatingEngineersputoutabannerwhichtheirattorneystatedwas forthepurposeofputtingthepubliconnoticethatMissouriRoofing wasnotcomplyingwiththeareapractice.TheNLRB,however,found thatthispicketwasforanunlawfulpurpose,andi ssuedanorder restrainingtheOperatingEngineersfromcontinuingsuchpractice. OrithemeritstheNLRBdetermined:11 Itiswellestablishedthat anemployerisfreetomakeassignmentswithoutbeingsubjectto pressuresbyalabororganizationseekingtheworkforitsmembers, unlesstheemployeristherebyfailingtoconformtoanorderor certification oftheBoarddeterminingthebargainingrepresentative foremployeesperformingsuchwork,orunlessanemployerisboundby anagreementtoassigntheworkindisputetotheclaimingunion. 11 SincetheOperatingEngineershadnoorderorcertificationfromthe Boarddeterminingthattheyw thebargainingrepresentativef or ere theemployeesoperatingthehoists,andsincetheOpera.ti.ngEngi.neers hadnocontractwithMissouriRoofing,theNLRBfoundthattheOperating EngineerswerenotentitledtoforceorrequireMissouriRoofingt oassignthedisputedworktomembersoftheOperatingEngineers' localratherthantoMissouriRoofingCompany'sownemployees. TheproblemwhichJohnReuterfaceduptoinSt.Louisiscommon tomostmetropolitanareass e rvedbyt heMidwestAssoclaticn. Becau::ie"