Trustees of the District Council No. 9 Painting Industry Insurance Fund v…

Background

District Council No. 9 International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, A.F.L.-C.I.O., and the Trustees of the District Council No. 9 Painting Industry Insurance Fund and Annuity Fund petitioned to confirm an October 1, 2019 arbitration award. They relied on Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act and Section 9 of the Federal Arbitration Act. Sahara Construction Corp. did not appear or oppose the petition in federal court, although a Sahara representative attended the arbitration hearing.

The arbitration arose under a collective bargaining agreement between Sahara and the Union. The agreement authorized the Joint Trade Committee to decide grievances and impose remedies for violations. The grievances alleged that Sahara had not paid Union member Junior Cespedes required wages and benefits. The Joint Trade Committee awarded $10,220.50 in lost wages payable to Cespedes, $8,244.25 in lost benefits payable to the Trustees’ funds on Cespedes’s behalf, and $4,000 in liquidated damages payable to the Joint Trade Board of the Painting and Decorating Industry.

Confirmation of the Arbitration Award

Judge Lorna G. Schofield treated Sahara’s unanswered petition as an unopposed summary-judgment motion. Summary judgment is a decision entered when there is no material factual dispute requiring a trial. The court explained that review of a labor-arbitration award is highly deferential: an award should be confirmed when it is based on the collective bargaining agreement and the arbitrator acted within the authority granted by that agreement.

The court found that the Joint Trade Committee had authority under the collective bargaining agreement to decide the wage-and-benefit dispute and impose unpaid wages, benefit contributions, and liquidated damages. The court also found that the award had more than a minimally reasonable basis because a Union representative testified about Cespedes’s work and Sahara’s failure to refute that account. The court therefore confirmed the award.

Fees, Costs, and Interest

The petitioners also requested attorneys’ fees and litigation costs. The court concluded that fees and costs could be awarded because Sahara had signed an agreement requiring arbitration, failed to comply with the award, and failed to justify its refusal to do so. The court also relied on the agreement’s provision requiring an employer that violates the agreement to pay qualifying fees and costs. However, the petitioners had not provided enough documentation to determine whether the requested amounts were reasonable. The court allowed them to file a fee application within 21 days, supported by time records, billing rates, descriptions of the work, and information about the attorneys.

The court also awarded post-judgment interest at the statutory rate under 28 U.S.C. § 1961, beginning when judgment is entered and continuing until payment. The petition was granted, the total award was confirmed at $22,464.75, and the Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.