District Council No. 9 International Union of Painters and Allied Trades…

Background

The Union sought confirmation and enforcement of an arbitration award against Highland under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. The Union and Highland were parties to a Memorandum of Agreement that adopted the terms of the Union’s Trade Agreement.

The agreement required Highland to register jobs immediately after receiving them, have the work performed by covered union glaziers, notify the Union if work would be subcontracted, and avoid subcontracting work to an employer without a current signed collective bargaining agreement with the Union. It also prohibited discharging or discriminating against an employee for belonging to the Union.

The agreement created a Joint Trade Committee authorized to hear and decide disputes about the agreement and impose remedies, damages, and penalties. The Union demanded arbitration, alleging that Highland failed to register a job, hired two nonunion glaziers, subcontracted glazier work to a nonunion employer, and discriminated against a job steward. Highland received notice of the arbitration hearing but did not appear.

After the August 10, 2017 hearing, the Committee found Highland responsible for failing to register the Route 300, Newburgh, New York job, subcontracting glazier work to a nonunion employer, and failing to conduct the job without a job steward when at least two glaziers were working. The Committee imposed an $11,500 fine. Highland did not comply with the decision.

Legal standard

Summary judgment is a ruling entered when the evidence shows that no important factual dispute requires a trial and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court explained that an unopposed summary-judgment motion is not automatically granted; the moving party must still support its factual statements with evidence.

The court also described judicial review of an arbitration award under the labor statute as very limited. Unless the award was obtained through fraud or dishonesty, the arbitrator’s factual findings, contract interpretation, and remedies generally bind the reviewing court.

Court’s analysis

The court found that summary judgment was appropriate based on the Union’s submissions. The agreement required Highland to register jobs and refrain from using nonunion glaziers or subcontracting to a nonunion employer. The court concluded that Michael Carriere’s observations supported the Committee’s findings, even though the evidence presented to the Committee was not exhaustive. The court also found that the itemized award matched the preset monetary amounts in the collective bargaining agreement for the violations.

The court found no basis to conclude that the arbitration decision was obtained through fraud or dishonesty. It therefore held that the Union was entitled to confirmation of the award as a matter of law.

Disposition

Judge Ronnie Abrams granted the Union’s motion for summary judgment to confirm the award. The court confirmed the arbitration award, directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment for the Union, terminated the pending motion, and closed the case.