NOTICE: This
opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound volumes
of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested
to notify the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
J & R Roofing Company, Inc. and United
August 13, 2007
By Chairman Battista and Members Schaumber and
Kirsanow
On February 11, 2004, Administrative Law Judge John T. Clark issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The General Counsel filed an answering brief to the Respondent’s exceptions, and the Respondent filed a reply brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions1 and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,2 and conclusions only to the extent consistent with this Decision and Order.
The judge found, among other things, that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by refusing to hire eight union applicants. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the judge’s finding and dismiss this allegation.
Facts
The Respondent is a commercial roofing contractor in
While filling out applications in the reception area, the applicants engaged in horseplay, as they pushed and nudged one another in a loud and boorish manner. In addition, one of the applicants inadvertently knocked over a candy dish.
Five minutes after the applicants began filling out their
applications, the Respondent’s vice president, Ed Taylor, came out to interview
the applicants.
While the applicants were filling out their applications, Valerie Lilly, the Respondent’s chief financial officer and the sister of Respondent’s president and owner4 Jeffrey Lilly, entered the reception area. Upon her entrance, at least one of the applicants stated, “Oh baby,” “Yeah, I want to work here. Mmm, get me some of that,” and “Boy, I’d like to work here.” Later that evening, Valerie Lilly told Jeffrey Lilly about these comments.
By letter to each applicant, dated August 14 and signed by Jeffrey Lilly, the Respondent rejected each of the applications for employment. The letters stated that the applicants engaged “in behavior that was inconsistent with a bona fide attempt to obtain employment,” and asserted that there was sexual harassment of “a female member of management.” While the letter also listed incomplete items on each of the applications, Jeffrey Lilly claimed that the applicants were rejected solely because of their behavior.5
The Judge’s Decision
The judge found that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(3) of the Act by refusing to hire the applicants. The judge found that the General Counsel met
his initial burden under
In its exceptions, the Respondent repeats its argument that, even in the absence of their union affiliation, the applicants would not have been hired because of their behavior at the facility. Contrary to the judge, we find merit in this argument.
Discussion
In
(1) that the respondent was hiring, or had concrete plans to hire, at the time of the alleged unlawful conduct; (2) that the applicants had experience or training relevant to the announced or generally known requirements of the positions for hire, or in the alternative, that the employer had not adhered uniformly to such requirements, or that the requirements were themselves pretextual or were applied as a pretext for discrimination, and (3) that antiunion animus contributed to the decision not to hire the applicants.
We assume arguendo that the General Counsel has met his initial burden, and that the burden therefore shifted to the Respondent. The Respondent contends that it has met its rebuttal burden because the record shows that the applicants would not have been hired in any event due to the sexually harassing statements that were made when the applicants applied for work. We agree with the Respondent’s contention.
As set forth above, the record shows that the applicants engaged in loud and boorish conduct, the most significant of which was the lewd and sexually offensive comments made about, and in the presence of, Manager Valerie Lilly, the sister of the Respondent’s president and owner, as she entered the reception area. Upon learning of the harassing comments directed at his sister, Jeffrey Lilly rejected the applicants, and specifically cited this conduct in his letters rejecting the applicants.6 Thus, the record shows the existence of a legitimate reason, relied on by the Respondent, for its refusal to hire the applicants.
In rejecting the Respondent’s contention that the applicants
were not hired due to the conduct directed towards Valerie Lilly, the judge
found that this reason was pretextual because of
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, J & R Roofing Company, Inc.,
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Telling applicants for employment that it did not, and
would not, hire any person affiliated with the
(b) Threatening to throw away the application of any
individual affiliated with the
(c) Throwing into a trash can applications completed by
applicants for employment who were affiliated with the
(d) Interrogating applicants in the employment application forms about their union membership, activities, and sympathies.
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days
after service by the Region, post at its
(b) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated,
Robert J. Battista , Chairman
Peter
C. Schaumber,
Member
Peter
N. Kirsanow
Member
(seal) National Labor Relations Board
APPENDIX
Notice To Employees
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
We will not tell applicants for employment that we have not, and will not, hire any person affiliated with the Union, United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers & Allied Workers, Local No. 30, or any other labor organization.
We will not threaten
to throw away the application of any individual affiliated with the
We will not
throw away applications for employment solely because the applicants are affiliated
with the
We will not interrogate applicants in the employment application forms about their union membership, activities, and sympathies.
We will not in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
J & R Roofing Company, Inc.
Christopher R. Coxson and Thomas J. Murphy, Esqs., for
the General Counsel.
Frank L. Kollman and Desmond T. McIlwain,
Esqs., (Kollman & Saucier, P.A.), of
Irwin W. Aronson and Kimberly Neeb, Esqs. (Willig, Williams & Davidson), of
DECISION
Statement of the Case
John T. Clark, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in
The complaint also alleges that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by telling the applicants that it did not, and would not, hire any person affiliated with the Union or any other labor organization; by threatening to throw away the applications of any individual affiliated with the Union or any other labor organization; by throwing into a trash can applications completed by applicants for employment who were affiliated with the Union; and by using a written employment application form that included a question asking applicants for employment if they were union members.
The Respondent’s answer denies the allegations. The parties were afforded a full opportunity to appear at the hearing, present evidence, examine and cross-examine witnesses, and file posthearing briefs.
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed by the counsel for the General Counsel and the Respondent, I make the following
Findings of Fact
i. jurisdiction
The Respondent, a
ii. alleged unfair labor practices
A. Background
The Respondent is a commercial roofing contractor that performs
roofing projects at various sites located between
HELP WANTED
FOREMAN
ROOFERS
LABORERS
SHEET METAL MECH.
APPRENTICES
The Respondent also hires individuals who go to the jobsite looking for work. These individuals are hired by the job foreman, without completing an application. Individuals who apply at the Respondent’s facility are required to complete an application. The Respondent admits that at all relevant times the first page of the application had a question asking if the applicant was a union member, and if so, to provide the name of the union and the local. After completion of the application the individual is interviewed by a member of management.
In the August 4 and 5, 2001 editions of the Baltimore Sun and Washington Post the Respondent placed help-wanted advertisements for roofing foremen and mechanics. The alleged discriminatees learned of the advertisements and, on August 9, 2001, drove to the Respondent’s facility to apply for work.
B. Events of August 9, 2001
Upon entering the reception area of the Respondent’s facility Fred Hammel, an alleged discriminatee, told the receptionist, Cathi Duhamel, that the group wished to apply for employment. Duhamel distributed the applications. Mike Bailey, an alleged discriminatee, testified that either he, or another discriminatee, asked how long the applications were kept on file. Bailey testified that Duhamel replied that they were kept on file indefinitely. Bailey testified that he thought her response odd, which is why he remembered it. Duhamel testified that she said that she thought they were held for a year. I credit Bailey’s version not only because of his overall testimonial demeanor, but also because it is consistent with other statements that he made.
The nine individuals (only eight of whom are alleged as discriminatees) began filling out the applications. Because of the small area the individuals used the entire counter, as well as occupying chairs in the rear of the reception area. The conduct of the discriminatees while they were completing their applications, as well as other matters concerning the events of the day, are in dispute. There is conflict regarding the sequence of events, not only between the General Counsel, and the Respondent’s witnesses, but among the Respondent’s witnesses. The following findings are based on my observation of witness demeanor, the established or admitted facts, and inherent probabilities and reasonable inferences that may be made from the record as a whole.
The testimony of the alleged discriminatees is, in essence, that they conducted themselves in a professional manner. It is not disputed that discriminatee William Reis caused a candy dish to fall from the counter and break, that he apologized, swept up the shards, and offered to pay for the dish. Reis credibly testified that he was bumped by another discriminatee which caused him to knock the dish off the counter. Duhamel admitted that she did not witness the incident but attributed the cause to the discriminatees “roughhousing.” I credit Reis’ testimony of what happened over Duhamel’s testimony as to her conclusion as to what happened.
Jacquelyn Ruff the Respondent’s former payroll administrator appeared and gave testimony regarding the alleged discriminatees’ conduct. Ruff’s demeanor appeared to be that of a truthful witness who was making an honest attempt to recollect what happened. She is also no longer employed by the Respondent. I found her to be a totally creditable witness. Ruff testified that she could not recall if she was summoned by Duhamel, or went to the reception area on her own because of the noise. Duhamel also could not remember if she called Ruff or if Ruff came of her own volition. In any event, Ruff testified that the men were loud, talking over each other, and playing around. Duhamel asked Ruff not to leave her “up here by myself with all these guys.” Ruff stayed in the reception area for between 5 to 10 minutes. She left when Vice President Edward Taylor arrived at the counter. I credit Ruff’s testimony and I also find it probable that she went to the reception area to investigate the noise. Had Duhamel felt it necessary to request assistance I believe Duhamel, as well as Ruff, would have remembered such an unusual and presumably memorable, request for assistance.
Duhamel further stated that she saw
At a point in time after the dish was broken Valerie
Lilly, the Respondent’s chief financial officer, entered the reception
area. Valerie Lilly testified that she
went into the area to retrieve her mail, leave some documents, and to ask Duhamel
if she, Lilly, had any phone messages.
Duhamel testified that as Lilly was approaching the reception area some
discriminatees began mumbling comments under their breath such as “Oh
baby.” “Yeah, I want to work here. Mmm, get me some of that.” (Tr. 1024.)
Although Valerie Lilly also overheard the comments she continued about
her business. She testified that she
walked over to Duhamel, spoke with her about assignments that needed to be
performed, received her phone messages, and got her mail. She then went to her office to return her
phone calls. Although
I credit the testimony of the Respondent’s witnesses over
the denials of the eight alleged discriminatees and find that at least one of
the alleged discriminatees made the remarks that were overheard by the
Respondent’s witnesses. As Duhamel explained,
the comments were unusual and stuck in her head (Tr. 1042). I also credit
Valerie Lilly also testified, in contradiction of her affidavit, that after making the phone calls she again walked past the men on her way to lunch. Duhamel agreed with Lilly’s recollection. However, in her affidavit, Lilly stated that she did not exit her office until the men had departed the reception area. I do not credit her testimony where it is contradicted by her affidavit. Not only was the affidavit given at a point closer in time to the events, but her explanation for the contradiction, that the statement was taken out of context, is not convincing. I also do not credit her testimony that she told her brother, the Respondent’s president, about the remarks when they returned from lunch. Her affidavit states that she told him, along with Vice President Taylor, that evening. When asked to explain why she failed to include her initial conversation with her brother in her affidavit she could only offer that she, “may have mentioned it. . . . I don’t know” (Tr. 1120.)
Frederick Hammel, a union organizer during the relevant period
and an alleged discriminatee, testified as to his recollection of events. Hammel said that about 5 minutes after the
men started filling out the applications
Hammel replied that the men wanted to work for, and organize,
the Respondent.
I find, based on their demeanor when testifying about this
incident, that the alleged discriminatees appear to be more credible than the
Respondent’s witnesses. I find the
testimonial demeanor of Taylor and Duhamel did not appear to be that of
individuals who were making honest and sincere efforts to recount the facts to
the best of their recollection.
Jeffrey Lilly, Respondent’s president and brother of Valerie Lilly, also testified. He stated that he observed the alleged discriminatees on his way lunch. He testified that they were “outrageously noisy,” “pushing one another at the counter, and one particular guy was hammering the counter for some reason.” However, because he was with individuals with whom he wished to do business, when asked, “did you stop” he replied, “No. Unfortunately, you know, I didn’t want our bonding company, let alone a bank, to feel like a roofing operation was the wild, wild west, so I overlooked it” (Tr. 1080).
Jeffery Lilly states that while he was in the Respondent’s
parking lot, after lunch, his sister told him of the comments. Upon entering the building
C. Analysis and Discussion
1. Alleged independent 8(a)(1) violations
a. Interrogating applicants about union membership
It is undisputed that during the relevant period the Respondent’s employment application contained a question asking if the applicant was a union member. President Lilly testified that the application had been used since about 1980 and that he was unaware that it contained the question about union membership.
The standard for determining if an interrogation is coercive is whether, under all the circumstances, the interrogation reasonably tends to restrain, coerce, or interfere with rights guaranteed by the Act. Furthermore, it is well established that questions involving union membership and union sympathies, in the context of job interviews and applications, are inherently coercive and thus interfere with Section 7 rights, and this is true regardless of whether the applicant is hired. E.g., Action Multi-Craft, 337 NLRB 268, 276 (2001); Culley Mechanical Co., 316 NLRB 26, 27 fn. 8 (1995); Rochester Cadet Cleaners, Inc., 205 NLRB 773 (1973).
I find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by interrogating applicants for employment by using a written application form that contained a question concerning the applicant’s union affiliation.
2. Telling applicants that the Respondent did
not, and would not, hire any person affiliated with the
The alleged discriminatees all similarly testified that
Accordingly, I find that the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act as alleged in the complaint.
3. Threatening to discard the application of any
individual affiliated with the
4. Discarding the applications of individuals
affiliated with
the
Having found that it is a violation of Section 8(a)(1) to
threaten to discard the applications of members of labor organizations, it
follows that it is also a violation to discard the applications. Based on the credited testimony of the
alleged discriminatees, I find that
2. Alleged 8(a)(3) violation
a. Respondent’s failure to hire the applicants
This case involves the practice of “salting.” Salting is when a union sends a member to
apply for employment at a nonunion employer.
The object of the union member is to be hired and then organize the
employer from within. For a more
extensive definition see Tualatin Electric, 312 NLRB 129, 130 fn. 3
(1993), enfd. 84 F.3d. 1202 (9th Cir. 1996).
The salting strategy may be overt, as here, where the applicants tell
the employer of their union affiliation and that they will attempt to organize
the employees within the parameters of the Act, or covert, where the union
affiliation and the objective of the applicants is not announced. Under either scenario applicants who are also
union organizers retain their status as statutory employees. NLRB v. Town & Country Electric, Inc.,
516
In
(1) that the Respondent was hiring, or had concrete plans to hire, at the time of the alleged unlawful conduct; (2) that the applicants had experience or training relevant to the announced or generally known requirements of the positions for hire, or in the alternative, that the employer has not adhered uniformly to such requirements, or that the requirements were themselves pretextual or were applied as a pretext for discrimination; and (3) that antiunion animus contributed to the decision not to hire the applicants. [Footnotes omitted.]
[
The Respondent does not dispute that counsel for the General Counsel has met his burden regarding the first two criteria. The newspaper advertisements and the help-wanted sign demonstrate concrete plans to hire during the relevant time. The evidence establishes that the Respondent hired four laborers and one mechanic on the day that the alleged discriminatees applied, and that from August 9, 2001, until July 12, 2002, the Respondent hired 21 mechanics, and 36 laborers. Testimony was given, and a stipulation between the parties received, establishing that all the alleged discriminatees are “qualified and able to perform the work of a journeyman mechanic roofer and a journeyman mechanic sheetmetal worker as well as the work as a laborer or apprentice with respect to all work performed by [the Respondent] during the relevant period” (Tr. 238–239).
With regard to union animus, I have found that the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by maintaining an application form that interrogated applicants about their union membership; that Vice President Taylor told the alleged discriminatees that the Respondent never had, and never would, hire union members; that he would discard the alleged discriminatees applications and that he did discard their applications, because they were affiliated with a union. Accordingly, the record amply supports a finding that antiunion animus contributed to the Respondent’s decision not to hire the alleged discriminatees.
b. Respondent’s defenses
The Respondent contends that it would not have hired the alleged discriminatees even in the absence of their union affiliation. The Respondent asserts that its “decision not to hire any of the alleged discriminatees was based solely on their behavior at the time the individuals applied” (R. Br. 4). I disagree, and find that the reason advanced by the Respondent for its action is a pretext. I find the pretext to be additional evidence that the real reason the Respondent did not hire the discriminatees was their union affiliation.
The testimony and actions of the Respondent’s witnesses
present the best evidence that behavior was not the real reason the Respondent
did not hire the discriminatees.
Duhamel, the Respondent’s receptionist, testified that she performed her
duties in a routine manner, she provided the discriminatees with applications,
and asked Vice President Taylor to interview them. She had a work discussion with Valerie Lilly,
gave Lilly her phone messages, and did not testify with specificity that the
conduct of the alleged discriminatees was disruptive of her work. She did not rebuke, or even address the men,
concerning their sophomoric behavior.
Although the group was loud and boorish, Duhamel did not feel it necessary
to ask Valerie Lilly to stay or, as I have found, to summon assistance. When Ruff arrived in the reception area,
Duhamel did not hesitate to leave Ruff, who was obviously pregnant, alone with
the men while she went to
Chief Financial Officer Valerie Lilly testified that she
overheard crass comments about her as she entered the reception area. Lilly’s reaction was to do nothing. She did not confront, she did not turn on her
heel and exit the area, she did not tell
President Jeffery Lilly observed the group while he was with banking and insurance representatives. He “overlooked” the conduct because he did not want his luncheon companions “to feel like a roofing operation was the wild, wild west.” I find his statement incongruous.
I find that letters sent by the Respondent to the discriminatees are self-serving and of no probative value. Furthermore, I credit the discriminatees denial that they received the letters, and I credit their testimony that they would have accepted employment with the Respondent. As Business Agent Hammel testified, “my job is to organize. I would work there for whatever job it is to try to organize” (Tr. 994).[1]
I have found that the actions of the Respondent’s agents belie it’s contention that it would not have hired the discriminatees even in the absence of their union affiliation or activities. Accordingly, I find that the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) as the Act by, since August 9, 2001, reusing to consider for employment and/or refusing to employee the named discriminatees because of their union affiliation or union activities.
Conclusions of Law
1. J & R Roofing Company, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. United
3. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by:
(a) Telling
applicants for employment that it did not, and would not, hire any person
affiliated with the
(b) Threatening to
throw away the applications of any individual affiliated with the
(c) Throwing into a
trash can applications completed by applicants for employment who were
affiliated with the
(d) Using an employment application form that included a question pertaining to union membership, thereby interrogating applicants for employment about their union membership, activities, and sympathies.
4. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by its refusal to consider for employment, and/or refusal to employ the following applicants based on their affiliation with a labor organization:
Michael Bailey, Fred J. Hammel, Timothy J. Kaisinger, Thomas F. Lowry, Keith Lypka, Joseph Mauro, William V. Reis, and Clark Shiley.
5. The foregoing unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Remedy
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent unlawfully discriminated against eight job applicants, I recommend that the Respondent offer them instatement to those jobs for which they applied and are qualified, or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to the discriminatees’ seniority or any other rights or privileges that they would have enjoyed had the Respondent not unlawfully discriminated against them.
I also recommend that the Respondent be ordered to make the discriminatees whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits, computed on a quarterly basis from date that they would have been hired to the date of proper offer of instatement, less any net interim earnings, as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest as computed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommended3
ORDER
The Respondent, J & R Roofing Company, Inc.,
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Telling
applicants for employment that it did not, and would not, hire any person
affiliated with the
(b) Threatening to
throw away the application of any individual affiliated with the
(c) Throwing into a
trash can applications completed by applicants for employment who were
affiliated with the
(d) Using an employment application form that includes a question pertaining to union membership, which thereby interrogates applicants for employment about their union membership, activities, and sympathies.
(e) Refusing to consider
for employment, and/or refusing to employ job applicants based on their
affiliation with the
(f) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer Michael Bailey, Fred J. Hammel, Timothy J. Kaisinger, Thomas F. Lowry, Keith Lypka, Joseph Mauro, William V. Reis, and Clark Shiley. full instatement to those jobs for which they applied and are qualified, or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or privileges that they would have enjoyed had the Respondent not unlawfully discriminated against them.
(b) Make Michael Bailey, Fred J. Hammel, Timothy J. Kaisinger, Thomas F. Lowry, Keith Lypka, Joseph Mauro, William V. Reis, and Clark Shiley whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against them, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the decision.
(c) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such additional time as the Regional Director may allow for good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored in electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in
(e) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated,
APPENDIX
Notice To Employees
Posted By Order Of The
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
We will not
tell applicants for employment that we have not, and will not, hire any person
affiliated with the
We will not
threaten to throw away the application of any individual affiliated with the
We will nott
throw away applications for employment solely because the applicants are
affiliated with the
We will not use an employment application form that includes a question pertaining to union membership, which thereby interrogates applicants for employment about their union membership, activities, and sympathies.
We will not refuse to consider for employment, and/or refuse to employ job applicants
based on their affiliation with the
We will not in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
We will within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, offer offer Michael Bailey, Fred J. Hammel, Timothy J. Kaisinger, Thomas F. Lowry, Keith Lypka, Joseph Mauro, William V. Reis, and Clark Shiley, full instatement to those jobs for which they applied and are qualified, or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or privileges that they would have enjoyed had we not unlawfully discriminated against them.
We will make Michael Bailey, Fred J. Hammel, Timothy J. Kaisinger, Thomas F. Lowry, Keith Lypka, Joseph Mauro, William V. Reis, and Clark Shiley whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against them, less any net interim earnings, plus interest.
J & R Roofing Company