Drywall Tapers and Pointers of Greater New York Local Union 1974 v. Seamless…
Drywall Tapers and Pointers of Greater New York Local Union 1974, Affiliated with International Union of Allied Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO v. Seamless Wall Finishing Inc.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:23-cv-01951
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Drywall Tapers v. Seamless Wall, Judge Ramos confirmed a $2,250 arbitration award against Seamless Wall and granted the Union’s petition.
The ruling affected Drywall Tapers and Pointers of Greater New York Local Union 1974, Affiliated with International Union of Allied Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO, and Seamless Wall Finishing Inc. Seamless Wall was subject to confirmation of the $2,250 arbitration award, post-judgment interest, and an assessment of attorney’s fees and costs.
What happened
Drywall Tapers and Pointers of Greater New York Local Union 1974, Affiliated with International Union of Allied Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO v. Seamless Wall Finishing Inc. involved a union’s effort to enforce an arbitration award. The Union said Seamless Wall violated their collective bargaining agreement, and the Joint Trade Board ordered Seamless Wall to pay a $2,250 fine. Seamless Wall did not appear in the arbitration or court case and did not pay.
The court treated the unanswered petition as an unopposed request for summary judgment but still reviewed the Union’s submissions. It found enough support for the arbitration award and no indication that the Joint Trade Board acted arbitrarily, exceeded its authority, or violated the law. The court also found an award of attorney’s fees and costs appropriate and granted post-judgment interest.
Judge Ramos granted the petition and confirmed the arbitration award. He directed the Union to send Seamless Wall a copy of the opinion and submit evidence of the attorney’s fees and costs to be assessed. The Clerk was directed to close the case.
The detailed version
- Drywall Tapers and Pointers of Greater New York Local Union 1974 v. Seamless… · No. 1:23-cv-01951
- Edgardo Ramos
- Dec. 29, 2023
Background
The Union petitioned to confirm an arbitration award against Seamless Wall under Section 301 of the Taft-Hartley Act. The parties had a collective bargaining agreement requiring disputes to be submitted to final and binding decisions by the Joint Trade Board.
The Union alleged that Seamless Wall violated provisions concerning taper job registration and registration of jobs for overtime work. The Union demanded arbitration on September 12, 2022. The Joint Trade Board held a hearing on November 3, 2022, after notice was sent to Seamless Wall. Seamless Wall did not appear. On November 21, 2022, the Board found that Seamless Wall violated the collective bargaining agreement and assessed a $2,250 fine, payable within ten days. The Union served the award on Seamless Wall, later demanded payment again, and stated that the fine remained unpaid.
The Union filed the petition on March 7, 2023, and moved for summary judgment on April 25, 2023. Seamless Wall did not appear or oppose the petition, and it did not seek to modify or vacate the award. The Union also sought attorney’s fees and costs.
Legal standard
The court explained that confirming an arbitration award ordinarily converts the award into a court judgment through a streamlined proceeding. Judicial review is very limited. A court generally must confirm an award when there is a barely colorable justification for the arbitrator’s result and no indication that the arbitrator acted arbitrarily, exceeded the arbitrator’s authority, or acted contrary to law.
Because Seamless Wall did not answer the petition, the court treated it as an unopposed motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate when the record shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome. Even when a motion is unopposed, the court must review the moving party’s submissions and determine whether the party is entitled to judgment under the law.
Court’s analysis
The court found sufficient justification for the Joint Trade Board’s award. The Board heard testimony, and the award reflected Seamless Wall’s obligations under the collective bargaining agreement. The court found no indication that the decision was arbitrary, outside the Board’s authority, or contrary to law. It therefore determined that the award should be confirmed.
The court also found the award of attorney’s fees and costs appropriate because Seamless Wall refused to comply with the arbitration award without appearing or challenging the award in court. The Union was directed to submit evidence of the amount of attorney’s fees and costs to be assessed; the opinion did not state the final amount.
The court granted post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a).
Disposition
Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the petition and confirmed the arbitration award. The Union was directed to send Seamless Wall a copy of the Opinion and Order and submit evidence of the attorney’s fees and costs to be assessed. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.