Hotel and Gaming Trades Council, AFL-CIO v. Key Hotels, LLC

Background

Hotel and Gaming Trades Council, AFL-CIO (the Union) sought confirmation of Award #2025-53, issued by the parties’ contractual industry arbitrator, called the Impartial Chairperson. Key Hotels, LLC, which does business as Hotel 46, had signed agreements binding it to an industry-wide labor agreement. That agreement required disputes between the parties to be submitted to the Impartial Chairperson for final and binding decisions. It also allowed the arbitrator to decide a case based on the appearing party’s evidence when the other party willfully failed to appear after receiving written notice.

The Union demanded arbitration against Key Hotels and LuxUrban concerning unpaid employee benefits, wage-related obligations, and a bond required by an earlier arbitration award. The hearing notice stated that the proceeding would address Key Hotels’ responsibility, as the Hotel’s owner, for obligations connected to LuxUrban’s failure to make payments and post the required bond. Key Hotels did not appear at the hearing. After considering the Union’s evidence, the Impartial Chairperson directed Key Hotels to post a $355,367.10 bond, pay $10,981.10 to hotel employees, and pay $497,927.09 to employee-benefit funds. The last amount included unpaid principal, liquidated damages, interest, late fees, arbitration fees, and attorneys’ fees.

Procedure and standard

The Union filed its petition on June 12, 2025. A clerk’s certificate of default was later entered after the Union submitted proof of service. The court directed that any opposition be filed by August 25, 2025, but Key Hotels did not respond. The court therefore treated the petition and supporting materials as an unopposed motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is granted when the submitted evidence shows that no genuine dispute about a material fact requires a trial.

The court explained that review of a labor-arbitration award is highly limited. The court does not reconsider the arbitrator’s factual findings or interpretation of the parties’ agreement simply because one side might disagree. Instead, it examines whether the arbitrator acted within the authority given by the collective bargaining agreement. The court concluded that the dispute fell within the agreement’s arbitration provision and that the arbitrator acted within that authority.

Ruling

The court concluded that there was no genuine dispute of material fact and that the Union was entitled to confirmation of the award. The Petition was GRANTED, and the Award was CONFIRMED. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment for the Union and against Key Hotels requiring Key Hotels to:

- post a $355,367.10 bond with the Office of the Impartial Chairperson; - pay $10,981.10 to hotel employees; - pay $497,927.09 to the HTC-HANYC Employee Benefits Funds; - pay the Union prejudgment interest at nine percent per year from May 21, 2025, through the date of judgment; and - pay post-judgment interest at nine percent per year.

The court also found an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs appropriate because Key Hotels had not complied with the award and had not participated in the court case. The Union was ordered to file an application supporting those fees and costs, including time records and billing information, by November 24, 2025. The opinion did not set the amount of those fees and costs.