Trustees of the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. Specialty

Background

The petitioners were the Trustees of the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund, Pension Fund, Annuity Fund and Training Program Fund, Anna Gutsin in her fiduciary capacity as Director of the Funds, and Michael Prohaska as Business Manager of the Mason Tenders District Council of Greater New York. They sought confirmation under the Labor Management Relations Act of an arbitration award against Bey’s Specialty, Inc.

Bey’s Specialty had agreed to be bound by project labor agreements that incorporated an applicable collective bargaining agreement and trust agreements. Those agreements required certain payments for covered employees and allowed disputes over unpaid contributions or records examinations to be arbitrated. After examining Bey’s Specialty’s records, the Funds determined that the company owed unpaid fringe benefits, dues and political action committee contributions, interest, and audit fees.

Federal Court Proceedings

The petitioners filed the petition to confirm the award on December 21, 2022. The court treated the petition as a motion for summary judgment, which asks whether the record shows that no important factual dispute requires a trial. Bey’s Specialty was served with the petition and the court’s briefing orders but did not respond or seek relief from the Consent Award.

The court explained that review of an arbitration award is narrow and highly deferential. An award generally should be confirmed when the arbitrator was arguably applying the parties’ agreements and acting within the arbitrator’s authority. Even though the petition was unopposed, the court still reviewed the petition, declaration, and exhibits to determine whether any genuine dispute of material fact existed.

Ruling

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon granted the petitioners’ unopposed Petition to confirm the Consent Award. The court found that Bey’s Specialty was bound by the agreements requiring payments and arbitration, that it appeared at the arbitration and agreed to the Consent Award, and that the record provided more than a minimally sufficient basis for the award.

The court entered judgment in favor of the petitioners and against Bey’s Specialty. It confirmed the December 22, 2021 arbitration award, ordered Bey’s Specialty to pay the petitioners $36,783.23 pursuant to the Consent Award, and ordered payment of post-judgment interest at the statutory rate under 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a).