Drywall Tapers and Pointers of Greater New York Local Union 1974 v. Tiger…

Background

The Union petitioned under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act and Section 9 of the Federal Arbitration Act to confirm an arbitration award issued on October 28, 2019. Tiger Contracting Corp. did not appear or oppose the petition.

The dispute arose under a collective bargaining agreement. Article XX required employers to make contributions to identified funds and treated failure to pay the required amounts as a breach. The agreement also allowed a $500 fine for each missed remittance report. Its arbitration provisions allowed a hearing to proceed when a party, after receiving proper notice, failed to appear, and stated that awards would be final and binding.

Tiger failed to submit 12 remittance reports between July 2, 2019, and September 17, 2019. The Union sent Tiger a notice of its intention to arbitrate and informed it of a hearing scheduled for October 28, 2019. Tiger did not appear at the hearing. The Joint Trade Board found that Tiger violated Article XX and ordered it to pay $6,000, calculated as 12 missed reports multiplied by the $500 fine. Tiger did not comply with the award or respond to the Union’s court petition.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that confirmation proceedings are generally treated like motions for summary judgment, meaning the court determines whether the available record establishes the petitioner’s entitlement to judgment. But review of a labor arbitration award is highly deferential. The court may not overturn an award merely because it disagrees with the arbitrator’s interpretation of the contract or assessment of the facts. The award should be confirmed when it draws its basis from the collective bargaining agreement and the arbitrator acted within the authority granted by that agreement.

The court found more than a minimally adequate basis for the Board’s decision. The agreement required the reports, the record showed that Tiger failed to submit 12 reports, and the agreement authorized a $500 fine for each missed report. The Board therefore acted within the authority provided by the agreement, and the court confirmed the award.

Interest and Disposition

Judge Lorna G. Schofield also awarded post-judgment interest, even though the Union had not expressly requested it. The interest must be calculated at the statutory rate under 28 U.S.C. § 1961 and accrues from the date judgment is entered until payment is made.

The court’s conclusion states that the petition is GRANTED. The Union is entitled to $6,000 in fines and statutory post-judgment interest. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.