Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v…

Background

The petitioners—the trustees of several benefit funds, the Carpenter Contractor Alliance of Metropolitan New York, and the New York City District Council of Carpenters—asked the court to confirm an arbitration award under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. The petitioners stated that AMCC was bound by a project labor agreement, a collective bargaining agreement, and the Funds’ collection policy.

Those agreements required AMCC to make contributions to the Funds and to make its books and records available for an audit. The petitioners requested an audit covering October 7, 2019, through the time of the request. AMCC did not provide the requested records. Under the collection policy, the Funds estimated unpaid contributions of $60,179.83 and initiated arbitration.

The petitioners sent AMCC a notice of intent to arbitrate and the arbitrator sent notice of the hearing. Both notices were sent by certified and regular mail to the address AMCC had provided. The certified mail was unclaimed, but the regular mail was not returned. AMCC did not appear at the May 5, 2021 arbitration hearing. On May 8, 2021, the arbitrator awarded $78,162.68, consisting of $60,179.83 in estimated principal, $3,046.88 in interest, $12,035.97 in liquidated damages, $400 in court costs, $1,500 in attorneys’ fees, and a $1,000 arbitrator’s fee. The arbitrator also provided for 5.25% interest from the date of the award.

The petitioners filed this action on March 10, 2022. The court treated the petition as similar to a motion for summary judgment, which asks whether undisputed evidence requires judgment as a matter of law. AMCC initially did not respond. After a court conference, counsel appeared and filed a two-page opposition arguing that the award should not be confirmed under a New York procedural rule because AMCC had not been served. AMCC submitted no evidence supporting that argument.

Legal Standard

The court explained that review of a labor arbitration award is very limited. The court does not reconsider the arbitrator’s decision on the merits or decide how it would have resolved the dispute. Instead, it asks whether the arbitrator acted within the authority granted by the collective bargaining agreement, applied or construed that agreement, and avoided ignoring its plain language.

A petition to confirm an arbitration award is considered like a summary-judgment motion. The party opposing the petition must submit admissible evidence showing a genuine dispute requiring a trial. The court stated that an award generally should not be disturbed absent fraud or dishonesty, or action outside the arbitrator’s authority.

Ruling on Confirmation

The court granted the petition and confirmed the arbitration award. It held that the arbitrator had found that AMCC received legally sufficient notice, and that determining the sufficiency of notice was a factual issue within the arbitrator’s authority. The court also found that the undisputed evidence supported the arbitrator’s determination that notice was sent as required by the agreements.

The court rejected AMCC’s challenge because AMCC offered only an unsworn argument and no evidence that it did not receive notice. The court found no reason to believe that the award was obtained through fraud or dishonesty, that the arbitrator disregarded the collective bargaining agreement, or that the arbitrator acted outside the granted authority. The record showed that the award was based on the agreements and undisputed evidence concerning AMCC’s refusal to permit the audit.

The court confirmed the award, including 5.25% annual interest from May 8, 2021, through the date of judgment.

Post-Judgment Interest

The court granted the petitioners’ request for post-judgment interest. Interest must accrue at the statutory rate under 28 U.S.C. § 1961 from the date judgment is entered until AMCC pays the judgment in full.

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

The court also found that an award of attorneys’ fees and costs for bringing the petition was justified. The court relied on AMCC’s agreement to binding arbitration, the collection policy’s provision allowing recovery of fees incurred to enforce audit rights, and AMCC’s failure to comply with the arbitration award.

Using the lodestar method—reasonable hours multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate—the court found that 46 hours of work and $142.95 in costs were adequately documented and reasonable. The court approved the requested rates for the partner, former partner, and legal assistants. It reduced the rate for associate Maura Moosnick from $275 to $225 per hour because of her relative inexperience, while recognizing her significant role in the case. The court awarded $10,085.50 in attorneys’ fees and $142.95 in costs, for a combined total of $10,228.45.

Disposition

The petition to confirm the arbitration award was GRANTED. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment for the petitioners in the amount of $78,162.68, plus 5.25% prejudgment interest from May 8, 2021, through the date of judgment, together with $10,228.45 in attorneys’ fees and costs. Statutory post-judgment interest was ordered from entry of judgment until full payment. The court directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motion and close the case.