Drywall Tapers and Pointers of Greater New York Local Union 1974 v. Tiger…

Background

The Drywall Tapers and Pointers of Greater New York Local Union 1974 and the Trustee of the Drywall Tapers and Pointers Local Union No. 1974 Benefit Funds petitioned under Section 301(c) of the Labor Management Relations Act to confirm a labor arbitration award against Tiger Contracting Corp. The Union and Tiger Contracting were parties to a collective bargaining agreement requiring binding arbitration before the Joint Trade Board.

After a covered dispute arose, the Union filed and served a demand for arbitration on April 5, 2021. Tiger Contracting did not respond. Following a May 10, 2021 hearing, the Joint Trade Board issued an award on June 2, 2021, resolving the dispute in the Union’s favor and setting a payment schedule. Tiger Contracting did not respond to or comply with the award. The petitioners later brought this court action, served Tiger Contracting, and moved for summary judgment. Tiger Contracting did not answer the petition or otherwise appear.

Legal Standards

The court explained that review of a labor arbitration award is very limited. A court generally must confirm an award if the arbitrator was interpreting and applying the collective bargaining agreement and acted within the scope of the arbitrator’s authority, absent exceptional circumstances such as fraud or a violation of public policy.

Because Tiger Contracting did not oppose the petition, the court treated it as an unopposed motion for summary judgment rather than entering a default judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. Even an unopposed motion must be supported by facts showing that the moving party is entitled to relief.

Court’s Analysis

The court found no genuine issue of material fact. It also found no indication that the award resulted from fraud or dishonesty, that the arbitrator disregarded the collective bargaining agreement, or that the arbitrator acted outside the authority granted by that agreement.

According to the record, the Joint Trade Board based the award on undisputed evidence concerning Tiger Contracting’s failures to obtain overtime permits for work at job sites and its wrongful layoffs of two Hispanic Union members. The court also found that the award’s amounts were based on the collective bargaining agreement and related agreements.

Disposition

The court GRANTED the petitioners’ motion. It confirmed the arbitration award and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment for the petitioners against Tiger Contracting Corp. in the amount of $10,554.09, plus interest from the date of the award through the date of judgment at a rate of 7.5%. The court also directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motion and close the case.