Trustees for the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund Pension Fund v…

Background

The Funds are employee-benefit plans and multiemployer plans serving eligible employees in the masonry industry. The opinion states that the Funds, along with the Mason Tenders District Council of Greater New York, sought to enforce obligations arising from collective bargaining and trust agreements. Those agreements required Martack Corporation, an employer bound by their terms, to make monthly benefit contributions and permitted arbitration of disputes involving allegedly delinquent contributions.

After examining Martack’s books and records, the Funds determined that required contributions had not been paid for the period from October 1, 2008, through December 25, 2011. The dispute was referred to Arbitrator Joseph Harris. Martack received notice but did not contact the arbitrator or appear, so the arbitration proceeded as a default hearing.

On June 8, 2014, Arbitrator Harris issued an award requiring Martack to pay $18,577.22. The award included delinquent fringe-benefit contributions, dues and political-action-committee contributions, current interest, audit costs, a shortage, damages under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, attorney fees, and a share of the arbitrator’s fees. Martack did not move to vacate the award and had not paid it.

Legal Standard

The Funds petitioned under 29 U.S.C. § 185 to confirm the arbitration award. Confirmation generally converts an arbitration award into a court judgment. The court explained that judicial review of an arbitration award is very limited and that an award ordinarily must be confirmed unless it is vacated, modified, or corrected.

Because Martack did not oppose the petition, the court treated it as an unopposed motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate when the record shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome. Even when a motion is unopposed, the court must independently review the submission to determine whether the moving party is legally entitled to judgment.

Court’s Analysis

The court reviewed the arbitration agreement and the award. It found that the agreements authorized the Funds to initiate arbitration against a delinquent employer and specified the arbitrators who could hear the dispute. The court also found that the arbitrator considered the evidence and explained the calculation of damages.

The court found no indication that the arbitrator acted arbitrarily, exceeded the authority granted by the agreement, or issued an award contrary to law. Applying the narrow standard of review, the court concluded that there was no disputed material fact and that the award should be confirmed.

Ruling

The court granted the petitioners’ motion. The arbitration award was confirmed, and the Clerk was directed to enter judgment in favor of the petitioners against Martack Corporation for $18,577.22. The judgment was to accrue post-judgment interest as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1961. The Clerk was also directed to terminate the motion and close the case. Judge Edgardo Ramos signed the order.