FILE NAME: Dow Chemical (DOW) DATE: 1969 Dec 9 DOC#: DOW007 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Memo RE Problem at Dow Chemical [Defense of Asbestos Content in Product] Ftt Severrtrea - tal o/23 Bert CbaacLcjl Joba Vyvarberg * Hew T ort Bocanber 5, 15W B.C.

FILE NAME: US Gypsum (USG) DATE: May 23, 1969 DOC#: USG 107 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: 1969 Letter to M Dierson from RL Kempthorne regarding asbestos labeling b p ra /& o i a S*"iw t f o se7 IT n m m is I EXHIBIT SPRAYON RESEARCH CORPORATION It* t .

FILE NAME Colonial Sugar Refinery CSR DATE 1961 Sept 20 DOC CSR044 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION Letter to Dr.

FILE NAME Insulation Contractors & Distributors ICD DATE 1969 Sept DOC ICD018 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION IDCNA Outlook oa poh Published by Insulation Contractors Nutional Association fua 3226 Fenton Street Silver Spring Maryland 09 Ale ye as. and yce nd terv on on- And Wee her or en x Asbestos Workers Lose Prefab Case When asbestos workers refused to install precut aluminum jacketing on an Ohio construction project it was illegal product boycott the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a memorandum granting enforce- ment of a National Labor Relations Board order against the union's boycott The litigation has consumed several years Taken as a whole it represents another attempt to interpret some of the Supreme Court's ruling in the National Woodwork Manufacturers Philadelphia door case The conclusion is that a union's refusal to handle a prefabricated item on the grounds its use violates a lawful work preservation clause in its labor contract is an illegal product boycott regardless of whether the contractor has control over the use of the item if the union's contract does not specifically preserve for its members the work lost by the use of the item and if its members have not traditionally performed that work at the jobsite The dispute arose during construction of a power generating plant in Hamilton Ohio Baldwin Hill one of the subcontractors was using precut aluminum jacketing purchased from Preformed Metal Products Co. to insulate the piping The asbestos workers employed by Baldwin claimed that use of the precut jacketing was a violation of their labor contract The contract prohibited the subcontracting of work traditionally and regularly performed by members of the union Baldwin tried unsuccessfully to get the specifica- of tions changed to permit the use of field cut jacketing Members the union refused to install the precut jacketing and the dispute went to the National La- bor Relations Board In the first around in 1967 the board found that the jacket jobsite jobsite cutting was not and and did not fall traditionally performed wwiit thhin in the work work tion clause of the labor contract As a result the union was engaging in an illegal illegal cott to force one person to cease using the product protect of anotherrather than attempting the work rights of its members that would have been legal as a primary strike The board found it unneces- sary to consider the contractor's lack of control over the use of precut jacketing While the NLRB decision was on appeal the Supreme Court issued its Philadelphia door case decision The appellate court which was the Sixth Circuit Court ofAppeals remanded case to the NLRB to IC- consider its decision in the light of the Supreme Court's ruling on the distinction between primary and secondary activity in boycott cases There the court said one cannot determine whether a restriction on subcon- tracting and enforcement of the restriction are violations of the ban on boycotts without an inquiry into SEPTEMBER 1969 whether under all the surrounding circumstances the union's objective was the preservation of work We reaffirm our previous findings the board said after taking a second look at the case On the basis of the foregoing review of the facts of this case in the light of the Supreme Court's most recent pronouncement in this area the board explained we conclude that Baldwin's desire to use Preformed jacketing in no way violated the bargaining agreement since it did not infringe upon work regularly or traditionally performed by Baldwin's em- ployees . . .

FILE NAME Manville JMA DATE 1968 Oct 31 DOC JMA415 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION Memo - Body Talcum Powders present present . " Cnt eebauBEA eprrae f Powder Powder Powder Shower Evening above cent Vegt ea sore OEE pare, ade, he ore ra wtisees Leek he n ney fF ios af 7 wick iote roe?

Industrial Hygiene Digest --j Ni INDUSTRIAL HEALTH NEWS LITERATURE ABSTRACTS MEDICAL ENGINEERING CHEMICAL TOXICOLOGICAL LEGAL .<: = 5^3 APRIL, 1960 .'11 7J ,, J INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE FOUNDATION MELLON INSTITUTE 4400 FUTH AVENUE PITTSBURGH 13, PA.

February 7, 1967 Mr.

Nr* Tony DirksBeyer Briggs and Stratton Company 3300 M* 124th Straot Milwaukee, Wisconsin June 13# 1968 Dsar Nr.

INTERNAL MIDICINI HAROLD 1.

Ootofear 4, 1967 hr* truM V MiUii WkUmi Blmlvr Otemitt UtUUa (NiMMi Hstors CmmnUm IhiMM, Now Trtt 1)H2 Bur Sr* tatlthi Nr. frM colaar of yotar plant u in St.

!

\.

,?

'A Monsanto Monsanto Company 1700 South Sacond Street St.

Kay 2, 1969 Mr.