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

Background

The Funds and the New York City District Council of Carpenters petitioned under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the Labor Management Relations Act to confirm an arbitration award against Nav Tech Construction Corp. The opinion states that Nav Tech agreed around 2007 to be bound by a collective bargaining agreement with the Union. The agreement required Nav Tech to follow the Funds’ collection policies, make contributions for covered work, and provide payroll and business records for audits.

Nav Tech notified the Union on April 11, 2017, that it was terminating the agreement, but the opinion states that Nav Tech remained bound through June 30, 2017. An audit covering June 28, 2014, through March 26, 2016, found that Nav Tech had failed to remit $45.84 in contributions. The agreement allowed disputes concerning payments to the Funds to be arbitrated and permitted recovery of interest, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

The petitioners initiated arbitration and notified Nav Tech by regular and certified mail. After a hearing, the arbitrator found that Nav Tech violated the agreement and ordered it to pay $3,988.90: $45.84 in unpaid contributions, $5.39 in interest, $9.17 in liquidated damages, $400 in court costs, $1,500 in attorneys’ fees, a $1,000 arbitrator fee, and $1,028.50 in audit costs. Nav Tech did not appear in the federal case, and the petition was unopposed.

Legal standard

The Federal Arbitration Act requires a court to confirm an arbitration award unless a statutory ground exists to vacate, modify, or correct it. Courts review arbitration awards narrowly and generally enforce an award if there is at least a minimally plausible justification for the result. Under Second Circuit precedent, an unanswered petition to confirm an arbitration award is treated as an unopposed motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Even though Nav Tech did not appear, the Court explained that it still had to examine the petitioners’ submissions and determine whether they met their burden.

Court’s analysis and ruling

The Court found that the petitioners had shown there was no genuine dispute about confirmation. The record showed that Nav Tech failed to make the required contributions, that the dispute fell within the arbitrator’s authority, and that the arbitration award was not disputed or shown to be incorrect. The Court therefore confirmed the award of $3,988.90.

The Court confirmed the arbitrator’s 5.25% interest rate from the date of the award through the date of the judgment. For interest after judgment, the Court applied the statutory rate under 28 U.S.C. § 1961.

The Court also held that attorneys’ fees and costs for bringing the petition were justified because Nav Tech had not paid the award or provided a justification for failing to do so. It approved $2,707.50 in attorneys’ fees based on submitted time records and approved $75 in service costs. The petition to confirm the award was GRANTED, and the Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.