Trustees for The Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. JTL…

Background

The petitioners were the Trustees for The Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund, Pension Fund, Annuity Fund and Training Program Fund, John J. Virga in his fiduciary capacity as Director of the Funds, and Robert Bonanza as Business Manager of the Mason Tenders District Council of Greater New York. The Funds are employee benefit plans, and the Mason Tenders District Council of Greater New York is a labor organization. JTL Construction Corp. was an employer under the Labor Management Relations Act.

JTL and the Union were parties to the Slow Food Market Lane Project Labor Agreement. Under that agreement and related trust agreements, JTL was required to make monthly contributions to the Funds at specified rates. The trust agreements also gave the petitioners the right to audit JTL’s records and to pursue arbitration concerning unpaid contributions.

An audit covering June 1, 2016, through August 31, 2016, found that JTL had not made required contributions. The petitioners sent JTL a notice of arbitration on August 7, 2017. An arbitration hearing took place on September 18, 2017, but JTL did not appear. Based on what the arbitrator described as substantial and credible evidence, the arbitrator issued an award on October 4, 2017, requiring JTL to pay $33,288.49. That amount included $24,152.58 in unpaid contributions, $3,867.57 in unpaid dues, $1,222.78 in interest, $2,445.56 in penalties, $500 in attorney fees, and $1,100 in arbitrator fees.

Petition to Confirm the Award

The petitioners filed this case seeking confirmation of the arbitration award under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act and seeking post-judgment interest. JTL did not pay any part of the award, did not respond to the petition, and did not appear in the case.

The court explained that confirming an arbitration award is a limited proceeding that turns an already final award into a court judgment. Even when a petition is unopposed, the court must review the petitioner’s submissions and determine whether they show that no genuine dispute of material fact prevents judgment as a matter of law. A genuine dispute of material fact is a disagreement about an important fact that would require a trial.

Court’s Analysis and Ruling

The court concluded that the petitioners had shown that no genuine dispute of material fact prevented confirmation of any part of the award. The arbitrator had considered the evidence presented at the hearing, and the award was within the authority granted by the trust agreements. The court also found no evidence that the award was unlawful, arbitrary, or beyond the arbitrator’s powers.

The court noted that federal courts generally do not review an arbitrator’s decision on the merits, including alleged factual errors or disagreements about how the parties’ agreements were interpreted. The court also identified the statutory grounds for vacating an award, such as fraud, arbitrator partiality, serious misconduct, or exceeding the arbitrator’s authority, and found no evidence of those problems here.

Judge Paul G. Gardephe granted the unopposed petition to confirm the Arbitration Award. The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment confirming the award in the amount of $33,288.49. It also granted post-judgment interest on the entire award, calculated from the date judgment was entered at the rate provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a), and directed the Clerk to close the case.