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

Background

The petitioners were the trustees of several employee-benefit and charitable funds, along with the Carpenter Contractor Alliance of Metropolitan New York. The opinion refers to the employee-benefit funds as the “ERISA Funds,” meaning funds covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. M&K was bound by a collective-bargaining agreement requiring it to make contributions for certain employee work.

The agreement required contribution disputes to be resolved through arbitration. M&K did not cooperate with an audit authorized by the agreement. The Funds therefore conducted an estimated audit, which concluded that M&K had failed to pay $650,728.98 in contributions. M&K did not challenge the audit results.

An arbitrator held a hearing on September 7, 2023, and issued an award on October 17, 2023. The award required M&K to pay $853,522.26, consisting of the estimated unpaid contributions, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, and the arbitrator’s fee. It also required M&K to comply with the outstanding audit requests, imposed interest at an annual rate of 10.25% beginning retroactively on June 8, 2023, and included the court filing fee if the Funds sought judicial enforcement.

M&K was served with a demand for payment and compliance but did not comply. The Funds filed this petition under Section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act to confirm the arbitration award. After M&K failed to respond, the court treated the petition as unopposed.

Legal standard

The court explained that review of a labor arbitration award is very limited. A court generally must confirm an award if the arbitrator was interpreting or applying the collective-bargaining agreement and acted within the arbitrator’s authority, unless exceptional circumstances such as fraud or a violation of public policy are shown.

Because a default judgment is generally inappropriate in an arbitration-confirmation proceeding, the court treated the unanswered petition as an unopposed motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute about any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. Even an unopposed motion must be denied if the evidence does not support the requested judgment.

Court’s analysis

The court examined the record submitted by the Funds and found no genuine issues of material fact. It found no indication that the award was obtained through fraud or dishonesty, that the arbitrator acted outside the authority granted by the collective-bargaining agreement, or that the arbitrator disregarded that agreement. The court also found that the award was based on undisputed evidence concerning M&K’s failure to cooperate with the audit and the results of the estimated audit. The amounts awarded were based on the collective-bargaining agreement and related agreements.

The court therefore confirmed the arbitration award and granted the request for post-judgment interest.

Attorneys’ fees and costs

The Funds requested attorneys’ fees and costs for the federal action. The court found that M&K had refused to follow the arbitrator’s decision despite being informed of it. The Funds’ attorneys documented 7.7 hours of work at an hourly rate of $310, totaling $2,387 in attorneys’ fees, and requested $555 in service-related costs. The court approved both amounts.

Disposition

Judge Vernon S. Broderick granted the petition. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment in favor of the Funds and against M&K as follows:

Post-judgment interest was ordered to accrue at the statutory rate under 28 U.S.C. § 1961 from the date judgment is entered until full payment.