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

Background

The petitioners were the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund, Pension Fund, Annuity Fund, and Training Program Fund; Anna Gustin, acting as the Funds’ director; the Mason Tenders District Council of Greater New York; and its business manager, Robert Bonanza. The opinion describes the Funds as employee-benefit and multiemployer plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Employers contributed to the Funds under a collective bargaining agreement.

Coastal Environmental Group Inc. was bound by the 2013–2017 Mason Tenders District Council Independent Asbestos Collective Bargaining Agreement. The agreement required covered employers to make monthly contributions to the Funds and to the Union’s political-action committee. The Trust Agreements allowed disputes over unpaid contributions to be resolved through arbitration and provided for unpaid contributions, interest, liquidated damages, attorney’s fees, costs, and other appropriate relief when the claim succeeded.

The petitioners alleged that Coastal failed to make required contributions and interest payments during several periods from September 2014 through July 2018. They referred the disputes to Arbitrator Joseph Harris. Coastal did not attend the February 28, 2019 arbitration. The petitioners submitted audit evidence, and the arbitrator found that Coastal owed the amounts shown in the audit reports.

On March 11, 2019, the arbitrator ordered Coastal to pay $1,241,395.18. The award included unpaid contributions, dues and political-action contributions, current and late-payment interest, audit costs, $271,962.92 in liquidated damages, $500 in attorney’s fees, and $1,000 in arbitration costs. The arbitrator found that Coastal was bound by the agreement and had notice of the arbitration.

Court’s analysis

The petitioners asked the court to confirm the arbitration award. Coastal did not respond within the required period after being served, so the petition was treated as an unopposed motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision entered when the record shows no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the result. The court explained that an unopposed motion still must be reviewed to determine whether the moving party is legally entitled to judgment.

The court stated that judicial review of an arbitration award is very limited. It found sufficient justification for the award because the arbitrator reviewed the collective bargaining agreement, the petitioners’ submission, and the audit reports. Those reports showed that Coastal owed contributions and interest, and the agreement made Coastal responsible for those payments. The court found no indication that the arbitrator acted arbitrarily, exceeded authority, or acted contrary to law.

The court also found the award of attorney’s fees and costs appropriate because Coastal had not appeared or attempted to modify or vacate the award. Finally, the court granted post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a).

Disposition

The court granted the petition and confirmed the arbitration award. It directed the Clerk to enter judgment for the petitioners against Coastal in the amount of $1,241,395.18, with post-judgment interest under § 1961, mail the decision to Coastal, and close the case.