Mason Tenders District Council of Greater New York and Long Island v. Air…

Background

Mason Tenders District Council of Greater New York and Long Island, acting on behalf of Construction & General Building Laborers Local 79, petitioned to confirm an arbitration award against Air Construction Corp. The petition relied on Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, a federal law that gives courts jurisdiction over certain labor disputes.

Air Construction was a contractor and had signed a project labor agreement and a collective bargaining agreement with the Union and Local 79. Those agreements required Air Construction to make fringe-benefit contributions for covered employees and to pay certain waiting-time benefits when workers were not paid on time or when salary checks were not honored by a bank. The agreements required disputes about unpaid wages or benefits to be resolved through arbitration.

The Union alleged that Air Construction employed Maria Duchi, Steven Robinson, and Ervin Mislio at a New York City jobsite but failed to pay required wages and benefits. It also alleged that Air Construction failed to make required contributions to benefit funds and failed to pay required waiting-time benefits and related contributions.

The Union began arbitration on April 15, 2019. The arbitrator found on October 31, 2019, that Air Construction violated the project labor agreement and collective bargaining agreement. On November 6, 2019, the arbitrator ordered Air Construction to pay $5,609.70 in wages and $5,585.26 in benefit contributions, to be distributed among the three workers and the benefit funds. The award also required the Union and Air Construction each to pay the arbitrator $1,800 for the arbitrator’s services. Air Construction did not appear at the arbitration hearing despite receiving notice and a reminder.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that confirming an arbitration award is ordinarily a limited proceeding that turns the award into a court judgment unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected. Courts generally do not reconsider the arbitrator’s factual findings or interpretation of the parties’ agreement. Instead, the court asks whether the arbitrator acted within the authority granted by the agreement and at least arguably interpreted or applied that agreement.

Because Air Construction did not oppose the petition, the court treated the petition and supporting record as an unopposed motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision entered when the undisputed evidence shows that the moving party is legally entitled to judgment. The court noted that an unopposed motion still must be supported by sufficient evidence.

The court found that the undisputed facts showed that the arbitrator’s award was within the arbitrator’s authority. It therefore granted the Union’s motion and confirmed the award.

Disposition

The petition to confirm the arbitration award was GRANTED. The court entered judgment in the Union’s favor for $11,194.96, plus $1,800.00 in legal fees owed to the arbitrator, for a total of $12,994.96. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.