Trustees for The Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. Specialties

Background

The petitioners were the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund, Pension Fund, Annuity Fund, and Training Program Fund; John J. Virga in his fiduciary capacity as the Funds’ director; the Mason Tenders District Council of Greater New York; and Robert Bonanza as the Union’s business manager. The court referred to these parties collectively as the petitioners. The Funds are employee-benefit and multiemployer plans covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The Union is a labor organization, and the opinion states that the Union is a member of the Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York.

CAC Specialties was bound by a project labor agreement covering New York City agency renovation and rehabilitation projects. The agreement required covered employers to follow the Funds’ trust agreements and make monthly payments to the Funds and the Union’s political-action committee. The trust agreements allowed disputes over unpaid contributions to be resolved through arbitration.

The petitioners alleged that CAC Specialties failed to make required payments from October 6, 2014, through June 30, 2016. After notice, Arbitrator Joseph Harris held an arbitration hearing on July 19, 2017. CAC Specialties did not appear. Based on evidence from the petitioners’ auditors and record examiners, the arbitrator awarded $29,571.58: $21,291.66 in fringe-benefit contributions, $1,618.17 in dues and political-action-committee contributions, $1,650.15 in current interest, $311.30 in tier shortages, $3,300.30 in liquidated damages, $500 in attorney’s fees, and $900 in costs.

The petitioners later asked the court to confirm the award. CAC Specialties did not respond within the required period, so the court treated the petition as unopposed.

Legal standard

The court explained that confirming an arbitration award normally converts the award into a court judgment. Judicial review of an arbitration award is very limited. A court generally must confirm the award if it has at least a barely colorable justification and there is no indication that the arbitrator acted arbitrarily, exceeded authority, or acted contrary to law.

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

Court’s analysis

The court found more than a colorable justification for the award. The arbitrator had reviewed the project labor agreement and the petitioners’ evidence and determined that CAC Specialties owed unpaid contributions. The court concluded that the award reflected CAC Specialties’ obligations under the agreement.

The court also found the attorney’s fees and costs appropriate because CAC Specialties had neither complied with the arbitration award nor appeared in the court case. In addition, the court granted post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a).

Disposition

Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the petition and confirmed the arbitration award. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment for the petitioners in the amount of $29,571.58, with post-judgment interest under § 1961, mail the decision to CAC Specialties, and close the case.