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

Background

Innovation Designs Inc. and the New York City District Council of Carpenters were parties to collective bargaining agreements. Those agreements required Innovation Designs to make contributions to the petitioners’ benefit funds for covered work and to provide books and payroll records for audits concerning those contributions. The agreements allowed disputes to be submitted to arbitration.

The petitioners requested an audit covering March 7, 2018, through the present. They stated that Innovation Designs failed to provide the requested records. The petitioners then began arbitration. After receiving notice of the arbitration hearing, Innovation Designs did not appear. Arbitrator Roger E. Maher found Innovation Designs in default, concluded that it violated the agreement by refusing to permit the audit, and ordered it to produce specified books and records. The arbitrator also awarded the petitioners $2,900 for attorneys’ fees, the arbitrator’s fee, and court costs.

The petitioners filed this federal action under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act to confirm the award. They also sought prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees, costs, and an order requiring production of the audit records. Innovation Designs did not oppose the petition, file papers, or appear in the case.

Court’s Analysis

The court treated the unopposed request to confirm the arbitration award as similar to a motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate when the record shows no genuine dispute over a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

The court explained that judicial review of a labor arbitration award is highly deferential. The court generally must confirm an award if the arbitrator was interpreting and applying the collective bargaining agreement and acted within the authority granted by that agreement. The court may not reconsider the arbitrator’s factual findings or reinterpret the agreement merely because a party disagrees with the result.

The court found that the petitioners showed that Innovation Designs was bound by the agreements, that the agreements required access to records for audits, and that Innovation Designs failed to provide those records. The court also found that the arbitration award was supported by the agreement and the evidence submitted to the arbitrator. Because Innovation Designs did not challenge the award, the court confirmed it.

Interest

The court granted prejudgment interest from the date of the arbitration award through the date of judgment. It selected a 5.25% rate based on the agreement’s provision referring to Citibank’s prime rate plus 2% and the rate used in similar cases. The resulting prejudgment interest was $118. The court also awarded post-judgment interest at the statutory rate under 28 U.S.C. § 1961.

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

The court granted in part the petitioners’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs. The collective bargaining agreement and the Funds’ Collection Policy allowed recovery of reasonable fees and costs incurred to collect unpaid contributions. The court found that the petitioners were entitled to recover reasonable fees and costs because Innovation Designs had agreed to those provisions and did not participate in the proceedings.

The petitioners requested $2,936.50 in attorneys’ fees based on 11.7 hours of work and $109.40 in costs. The court found the hours reasonable but reduced the requested hourly rate for attorney Nicole Marimon from $350 to $325 and the requested rate for attorney Adrianna R. Grancio from $275 to $250. It approved the $120 hourly rate for legal assistants. These rates produced an attorneys’ fee award of $2,699. The court also granted the requested $109.40 in costs.

Disposition

The court granted the petition. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment for $5,826.40, consisting of the $2,900 arbitration award, $118 in prejudgment interest, $2,699 in attorneys’ fees, and $109.40 in costs. Post-judgment interest will accrue at the statutory rate. The court directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motions, adjourn remaining dates, and close the case.