New York City & Vicinity District Council of Carpenters v. Talico Contracting…

Background

The District Council, a labor organization, petitioned under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act to confirm an arbitration award against Talico. Talico was bound by a project labor agreement and a related local agreement covering work at the Walden Houses project. Those agreements required final and binding arbitration of disputes.

The District Council initiated arbitration after alleging that Talico failed to use the union’s job-referral system and failed to permit the District Council to designate a shop steward. Talico did not appear at the May 14, 2018 arbitration hearing. The arbitrator found that Talico violated the project labor agreement by failing to hire employees through the District Council’s referral service over four days and ordered payments to five named carpenters, benefit-fund contributions, and $700 representing Talico’s half of the arbitrator’s $1,400 fee.

Court’s analysis

The court treated the unanswered petition as an unopposed motion for summary judgment, meaning a request for judgment because no genuine dispute of important facts requires a trial. Courts give substantial deference to arbitration awards, particularly in labor disputes. The court explained that an award should be confirmed if there is at least a minimally plausible basis for the arbitrator’s decision and the arbitrator did not exceed the authority granted by the agreements.

The court found no genuine dispute about whether the dispute was subject to arbitration. It also found that the District Council had shown at least a minimally plausible justification for the award and that there was no indication the arbitrator acted arbitrarily or exceeded his authority. The court therefore confirmed the award.

Ruling

Judge Analisa Torres granted the petition to confirm the arbitration award. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment against Talico Contracting Inc. for $16,300.52, consisting of $8,613 for the named carpenters, $6,987.52 in benefit-fund contributions, and $700 for Talico’s share of the arbitrator’s fee. The court also granted nine-percent prejudgment interest calculated from May 22, 2018, through the date of judgment, and granted post-judgment interest at the statutory rate.

The court denied the District Council’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs because the District Council did not specify the amount sought or provide the required documentation supporting the request. The Clerk was directed to close the case.