Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund v…

Background

A collective bargaining agreement between the New York City District Council of Carpenters and the Association of Wall-Ceiling & Carpentry Industries of New York, Inc. governed covered employers from July 1, 2017, through June 30, 2024. The agreement required covered employers, including Robo Doors & Hardware Corp., also known as Robo Hardware Corp., to make contributions to several funds based on work performed within the Union’s jurisdiction. The agreement incorporated the Petitioners’ Revised Statement of Policy for Collection of Employer Contributions.

An audit dated June 14, 2023, found that Robo had not made all required contributions for work performed from March 29, 2020, through December 24, 2022. The Petitioners commenced arbitration on September 6, 2023, seeking $112,970.47 for unpaid contributions, liquidated damages, interest, fees, and costs. Robo did not appear at the October 25, 2023 arbitration hearing. Arbitrator Jeffrey G. Stein found Robo in default and awarded the Petitioners $112,970.47, with interest accruing at 10.25% annually from the date of the award.

The Petitioners filed this federal petition under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act to confirm the award. Robo did not oppose the petition or otherwise appear in the case. The court treated the unanswered petition as an unopposed motion for summary judgment, meaning the court still had to determine whether the Petitioners were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Confirmation of the Arbitration Award

The court explained that judicial review of a labor arbitration award is highly deferential. The award should be confirmed if it draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement and is not merely the arbitrator’s own form of industrial justice. The court may not reject the award simply because it might have reached a different result; a barely colorable justification is generally enough. An award cannot stand if the arbitrator clearly exceeded his authority.

The court held that Arbitrator Stein acted within the authority granted by the collective bargaining agreement and the Collection Policy. The agreement and policy provided for arbitration of contribution delinquencies and authorized the relief awarded. The audit report supported the amount of the unpaid balance, and the arbitration record included uncontroverted testimony that Robo did not pay or offer a settlement after the audit.

The court concluded that there was no genuine dispute of material fact and that the Petitioners were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. It therefore granted the Petitioners’ petition to confirm the $112,970.47 arbitration award.

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

The Petitioners requested $3,813 in attorneys’ fees and $83 in costs for the confirmation proceeding, plus post-judgment interest. The court found that fees and costs were authorized by the collective bargaining agreement and Collection Policy and were appropriate because Robo had neither complied with the arbitration award nor responded to the confirmation petition.

The requested fees represented 12.3 hours of work by two associates at $310 per hour. The court found that $300 per hour was reasonable, while finding the 12.3 hours reasonable based on the descriptions of the work. It approved the requested $83 in costs. The court therefore awarded $3,690 in attorneys’ fees and $83 in costs.

Disposition

The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment for the Petitioners against Robo in the amount of $112,970.47, plus interest from October 25, 2023, at 10.25% annually until the date of judgment. It also directed entry of judgment for $3,690 in attorneys’ fees and $83 in costs. Post-judgment interest was to accrue at the statutory rate under 28 U.S.C. § 1961 until payment in full. The Clerk was directed to close the case.