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

Background

The petitioners were the named carpenters’ funds, the New York City District Council of Carpenters, and related entities identified in the opinion. The Union represented carpenters and was the certified bargaining representative for certain employees of Hasa Construction, LLC. Hasa was a member of the General Contractors Association of New York and agreed to be bound by two collective bargaining agreements between that association and the Union.

Under those agreements, Hasa had to make contributions to the funds for each hour worked by its employees and provide its books and payroll records when the funds requested an audit. In October 2017, the petitioners sought an audit to calculate contributions owed, but Hasa refused. The petitioners later estimated a contribution deficiency of $208,592.83 and began arbitration.

Arbitrator Roger E. Maher held a hearing on December 8, 2020. Although Hasa received notice, it did not appear. On December 9, 2020, the arbitrator found that Hasa violated the collective bargaining agreements by failing to allow examination of its books and records and ordered Hasa to pay $279,941.36.

Court’s analysis

The petitioners asked the court to confirm the arbitration award under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. Because the petition was unopposed, the court treated it as an unopposed motion for summary judgment, which is a request for judgment without a trial when no material factual dispute requires one.

The court explained that confirmation is generally a limited proceeding. The court does not reconsider the arbitrator’s decision on the merits; it asks whether the arbitrator acted within the authority granted by the collective bargaining agreement and whether there is at least a minimally supportable basis for the result.

The court found that the collective bargaining agreements required disputes about contributions to be arbitrated. It also found that Arbitrator Maher acted within his authority, determined that Hasa violated the agreements by failing to produce its books and records, and found that Hasa owed $208,592.83 in contributions based on the evidence presented by the petitioners. The court found more than the required minimal justification for the award and found no reason to vacate it.

Fees and interest

The court found that an award of attorneys’ fees and costs was justified because Hasa had not complied with the arbitration award, had provided no reason for its failure to do so, and had not participated in either the arbitration or the court action. The collective bargaining agreements also allowed the petitioners to recover reasonable fees and costs for court proceedings to collect delinquent contributions. The court awarded the requested $805 in attorneys’ fees and $75 in service costs, for a total of $880.

The court granted pre-judgment interest at 5.25 percent from December 9, 2020, through the date judgment was entered. It also awarded mandatory statutory post-judgment interest from the date of judgment until Hasa paid the full award.

Disposition

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted the petition to confirm the arbitration award. The court entered judgment for the petitioners in the amount of $279,941.36, plus 5.25% pre-judgment interest, $880 in attorneys’ fees and costs, and statutory post-judgment interest. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.