Trustees for The Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. Baroco…

Background

The petitioners were the Trustees of the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund, Pension Fund, Annuity Fund, and Training Program Fund; Anna Gutsin, acting as the Funds’ Director; and Michael Prohaska, the Business Manager of the Mason Tenders District Council of Greater New York. The Funds are employee-benefit plans, and the Union is a labor organization. Baroco Contracting Corp. is identified in the opinion as a construction contractor.

Baroco was a signatory to a Master Independent Collective Bargaining Agreement and a member of the Cement League, which had a collective bargaining agreement with the Union. Under those agreements, Baroco was required to make specified payments and contributions for covered employees. The agreements also allowed the Funds to seek unpaid contributions and related amounts through arbitration when an employer failed to make required payments or provide records for examination.

The Funds determined that Baroco had not paid certain fringe benefits and other contributions for February 1, 2017 through April 30, 2017, and April 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021. After receiving notice of arbitration, Baroco did not appear at the June 14, 2022 hearing. Arbitrator Richard Adelman proceeded with the hearing after finding that Baroco had received the required notices.

Arbitration Award and Court Proceedings

The Funds submitted paystubs, testimony, and an auditor’s summary report. On June 21, 2022, the arbitrator found for the Funds based on the unrebutted evidence and ordered Baroco to pay $24,390.48. The award included delinquent contributions, dues and political-action-committee contributions, interest, liquidated damages, attorney fees, and arbitration costs.

The petitioners filed this federal petition on June 16, 2023, asking the court to confirm the award under the Labor Management Relations Act. The court treated the petition as a motion for summary judgment, meaning it considered whether the evidence showed that no genuine dispute required a trial. Baroco was served with the petition and supporting papers but did not oppose the petition or seek relief from the award.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that review of an arbitration award is highly deferential. An award generally should be confirmed if the arbitrator was arguably interpreting or applying the parties’ contract and acted within the arbitrator’s authority. The court also stated that, even when a petition is unopposed, it must review the record and determine whether the petitioner has shown that no material fact remains disputed.

The court found that the petition was filed within one year after the award. It also found that the record showed Baroco was bound by the agreements, that the agreements provided for arbitration, and that Baroco had received notice but failed to participate. Because Baroco did not dispute the petitioners’ evidence, and because the award had more than a legally sufficient basis, the court confirmed the award.

Disposition

The court granted the petitioners’ unopposed petition to confirm the award. It entered judgment for the petitioners and against Baroco Contracting Corp.; confirmed the June 21, 2022 arbitration award; ordered Baroco to pay $24,390.48 under the award; and ordered Baroco to pay post-judgment interest at the statutory rate under 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a).