Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v…

Background

The Funds brought a petition under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act to confirm and enforce an arbitration award issued by Arbitrator Daniel Engelstein on May 10, 2024. An audit found that Advanced had not paid $3,822.40 in required contributions for the period from March 28, 2022, through March 12, 2023. After notice of the hearing, Advanced objected and did not attend.

The arbitrator awarded the Funds $23,482.08, including the unpaid contributions, interest, liquidated damages, promotional fund contributions, attorney’s fees, audit costs, late-payment interest, and arbitration costs. The Funds then asked the court to confirm the award. Advanced opposed the petition.

Jurisdiction

Advanced argued that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the petition. The court rejected that argument. It held that Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act independently gives federal courts jurisdiction over suits involving violations of contracts between employers and labor organizations, including enforcement of labor-arbitration awards. The court explained that this conclusion did not improperly use the underlying dispute to establish jurisdiction under the Federal Arbitration Act; the petition itself concerned noncompliance with an award issued under labor contracts.

Agreement to Arbitrate

Advanced also argued that it had never agreed to be bound by the collective bargaining agreement or to arbitrate before Arbitrator Engelstein. The court disagreed. Advanced signed four project-labor-agreement affidavits that incorporated the applicable project labor agreements. Those agreements incorporated a collective bargaining agreement, which included an arbitration provision and incorporated the Funds’ rules and policies, including the 2016 Collection Policy. That policy required legal action to collect delinquent contributions generally to take the form of arbitration.

The court agreed that Advanced likely could not have incorporated the Funds’ 2023 Collection Policy because that policy did not yet exist when Advanced signed its agreements. But the court held that this did not defeat confirmation because the 2016 Collection Policy was already in existence and required arbitration of disputes over delinquent contributions.

The collective bargaining agreement named Roger Maher as the arbitrator for grievances. The 2016 Collection Policy did not name a particular arbitrator. The court held that the 2016 Collection Policy was more specific because it addressed disputes over delinquent employer contributions, while the collective bargaining agreement’s provision applied generally to grievances. Therefore, the 2016 Collection Policy controlled, and Advanced had agreed to arbitration before Arbitrator Engelstein. The court also stated that Advanced had forfeited an argument that another collective-bargaining-agreement provision, Article XV, controlled because it had not raised that argument in its opposition or later letter brief.

Review of the Award and Fees

Advanced did not challenge the substance of the arbitrator’s award. The court nevertheless reviewed the record and found that the Funds were permitted to seek arbitration, that Engelstein gave proper advance notice of the hearing, and that he did not exceed his authority. The court applied the deferential standard governing confirmation of arbitration awards and found no genuine dispute requiring a different result.

The Funds also requested attorney’s fees and costs under the collective bargaining agreement. The court found the requested rates reasonable. Advanced did not oppose that request.

Disposition

Judge Oetken granted the Funds’ petition to confirm the arbitration award. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment for the Funds in the amount of $23,482.08, plus $1,273 in attorney’s fees and $484.50 in costs, and to close the case.