Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund v…

Background

Inniss Construction, Inc. and the New York City District Council of Carpenters were parties to a collective bargaining agreement. The agreement required Inniss Construction to make contributions to several employee benefit funds and to provide books and payroll records for audits. It also required disputes to be submitted to arbitration.

An audit covering June 25, 2018, through December 22, 2019, found that Inniss Construction had not made required contributions. The opinion states that the principal deficiency was $566,609.75, that the Funds recovered $527,190.20 from a surety, and that $39,419.55 remained outstanding. The Funds then pursued arbitration.

Inniss Construction received notice of the arbitration hearing. Andrew Inniss, identified in the opinion as a principal of Inniss Construction, appeared remotely but did not dispute the Funds’ evidence or claims. On February 22, 2021, the arbitrator found that Inniss Construction had violated the collective bargaining agreement and ordered it to pay $199,544.19, including the remaining principal deficiency, interest, liquidated damages, fees, costs, and other amounts. The arbitrator also set interest at 5.25% annually from the award’s issuance.

Court’s Analysis

The Funds and the Union filed a petition to confirm the award under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the Labor Management Relations Act. They moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence shows that no important facts are genuinely disputed and that the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. Inniss Construction did not oppose the petition, file papers, or otherwise appear in the case.

Judge Failla explained that federal courts give arbitration awards, particularly labor arbitration awards, very strong deference. The court generally must confirm an award unless it was vacated, modified, or corrected, and it may not reconsider the arbitrator’s factual or contractual conclusions merely because someone disagrees with them. The court instead examines whether the arbitrator acted within the authority granted by the collective bargaining agreement.

The court found that the Funds had adequately supported the petition, that the award was consistent with the collective bargaining agreement and the Funds’ Collection Policy, and that the arbitrator’s written decision provided a discernible basis for the award. The court therefore confirmed the arbitration award.

Ruling

Judge Failla granted the petition and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment for $209,094.16. That amount consisted of the $199,544.19 arbitration award, $6,830.97 in prejudgment interest, $2,644 in attorneys’ fees, and $75 in costs. The court also ordered post-judgment interest at the statutory rate under 28 U.S.C. § 1961.

The court granted in part the Funds’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs. It awarded $2,644 in fees instead of the requested $3,041.50 because it reduced the hourly rates for two attorneys, while approving the requested rate for legal assistants. It awarded the requested $75 in costs. The court directed that all pending motions be terminated, remaining dates be adjourned, and the case be closed.