Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled June 21, 2021

District Council No. 9 International Union of Painters and Allied Trades v…

Full caption

District Council No. 9 International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, A.F.L.- C.I.O. v. Speedo Corp.

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:20-cv-10162
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
5
ArbitrationContractSummary Judgment
In one sentence

In District Council No. 9 v. Speedo Corp., Judge Abrams confirmed the arbitration award and entered a $12,000 judgment.

Who this affects

District Council No. 9 International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, A.F.L.-C.I.O. obtained confirmation of its arbitration award, while Speedo Corporation was subjected to a $12,000 judgment.

What happened

District Council No. 9 International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, A.F.L.-C.I.O. v. Speedo Corp. concerned a union’s request to enforce an arbitration award against Speedo Corporation. The award found that Speedo violated the parties’ collective bargaining agreement by failing to register overtime work and hiring non-union labor.

The court found that the union had provided evidence supporting the award, that the arbitration process was authorized by the agreement, and that the award was final and binding. Speedo did not oppose the petition or appear in the case.

Judge Ronnie Abrams granted the petition, confirmed the arbitration award, directed entry of judgment for $12,000, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
District Council No. 9 International Union of Painters and Allied Trades v… · No. 1:20-cv-10162
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
June 21, 2021

Background

District Council No. 9 International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, A.F.L.-C.I.O. sought confirmation of an arbitration award against Speedo Corporation. The union and Speedo were parties to a collective bargaining agreement. In 2020, union representatives observed two union members performing unregistered overtime work and a non-union member performing work covered by the agreement. The union alleged that this conduct violated the agreement and demanded arbitration before the Joint Trade Committee.

The Joint Trade Committee held a hearing on August 12, 2020. It found that Speedo violated several provisions of the collective bargaining agreement and ordered Speedo to pay a $10,000 fine for failing to register a job for overtime work and $2,000 in liquidated damages for hiring non-union labor. The agreement stated that the committee’s awards, including fines and penalties, were final and binding. The union notified Speedo of the award and later demanded payment, but Speedo did not pay.

Court’s Analysis

The union filed the petition to confirm the award on December 3, 2020. Speedo did not oppose the petition or otherwise respond. The court treated the unanswered petition as an unopposed motion for summary judgment, meaning a request for judgment without a trial when there is no genuine dispute over an important fact. The court still reviewed the union’s submissions rather than granting the petition solely because Speedo failed to respond.

The court found no material factual dispute preventing enforcement. The collective bargaining agreement authorized the Joint Trade Committee to decide disputes between the parties and provided that its awards were final and binding. The union submitted evidence of the alleged violations, notice of the arbitration hearing, the committee’s award, notice of the award, and the later demand for payment. Nothing before the court suggested that the fines, which were calculated under the agreement’s schedule of fines, were incorrect. The court therefore confirmed the arbitration award under the deferential standard governing review of arbitration decisions.

Ruling

Judge Ronnie Abrams granted the petition to confirm the arbitration award. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment for $12,000 and close the case. The opinion also noted that the union had not requested attorneys’ fees or costs; if it later seeks them, its counsel must submit contemporaneous time records for the court’s review.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.