Local Union 342 of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the…

Background

The union sought to enforce a joint conference board (JCB) award against R E Milano Plumbing Corporation. The opinion states that Milano had refused to pay the award and that the union filed this action to compel payment. Milano asked the court to vacate, or set aside, the award.

Challenge to the JCB award

Milano argued that the JCB exceeded its authority by failing to continue, or postpone, the hearing. The court held that the JCB reasonably concluded that Milano had not requested a continuance. Milano’s owner responded to notice of the hearing by saying he was unavailable until September, but he did not explain why, propose another date, offer to send a representative, or otherwise participate in scheduling. A potential representative also indicated that the date did not work and later said he would not represent Milano.

The court further held that, even if Milano had requested a continuance, it was not entitled to one merely by asking. A party must show good cause. The court found that Milano had not communicated any reason for needing a delay before the hearing. It also rejected Milano’s later explanation that the owner had to attend a business meeting in Alaska, finding that explanation not credible as a basis for showing that the owner could not attend on another date. The court noted that Milano could have arranged for someone else to appear.

The court also rejected Milano’s separate argument that the proceedings were fundamentally unfair. It stated that the JCB did not refuse to hear Milano’s evidence; rather, Milano failed to appear to present any evidence.

Ruling

Judge Vince Chhabria granted the union’s motion for summary judgment. The court confirmed the JCB’s award and found no basis for vacating it.

Attorneys’ fees

The court granted the union’s request for attorneys’ fees. It found that Milano had acted in bad faith, including by failing to seriously attempt to schedule the hearing, refusing to pay the award without justification, and pursuing what the court described as a baseless effort to vacate the award. The court directed the union to file documentation supporting its fee request by March 21, 2024. Any objection to the requested amount or supporting materials was due by March 25, 2024. The opinion does not state the amount of fees awarded.