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

Background

The petitioners sought confirmation of an arbitration award under section 9 of the Federal Arbitration Act and section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. Confirmation would turn the arbitration award into a court judgment.

The unopposed record showed that Dreamworks signed a collective bargaining agreement with the New York City District Council of Carpenters on or about March 16, 2018. The agreement applied retroactively from July 1, 2011, through May 31, 2017. The petitioners argued that Dreamworks showed an intent to remain bound after that period by continuing to report work and remit contributions to the funds.

The petitioners submitted remittance reports for work performed between June 10, 2018, and March 17, 2019. The reports’ receipt dates ranged from July 11, 2018, through July 8, 2019, and the reported remittances totaled approximately $96,000. The petitioners sought confirmation of an arbitration award for unremitted contributions for a period beginning June 6, 2018, and continuing through an unspecified date.

Court’s Analysis

Because Dreamworks did not appear or respond, the court regarded the petition as an unopposed motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the moving party shows that no important factual dispute requires trial and that it is entitled to judgment under the law. The court emphasized that it could not grant the motion merely because Dreamworks had not opposed it; it first had to determine whether the petitioners’ evidence satisfied their burden.

The court explained that arbitration is based on an agreement. A party generally cannot be required to arbitrate a dispute unless it agreed to do so, and whether an arbitration agreement was formed is generally for a court to decide. The court therefore required evidence addressing whether Dreamworks intended to remain bound by the collective bargaining agreement after the agreement’s stated period, so that the agreement’s arbitration clause would govern the dispute.

The court identified circumstances requiring additional support: Dreamworks had signed a retroactive agreement in March 2018, refused to submit to an audit, remitted contributions for only one employee for much of the relevant period, and was not shown to have engaged in other documented performance after the agreement’s stated period. The court compared those facts with other cases involving more extensive evidence of an employer’s intent to remain bound.

Ruling and Next Steps

The court ordered the petitioners to submit supplemental briefing and further evidence supporting their claim that Dreamworks intended to remain bound by the collective bargaining agreement. The filing was due no later than 30 days after entry of the order. The petitioners also had to serve Dreamworks with the order and file proof of service. If Dreamworks wished to respond, its submission was due no later than 14 days after the petitioners’ supplemental filing.

The order did not grant or deny the petition to confirm the arbitration award. Judge Laura Taylor Swain left the confirmation issue pending additional briefing.