Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund, Pension Fund, Annuity Fund and Training Program Fund v. Euston Street Services, Inc.
1:15-cv-06628
S.D.N.Y.Jan 5, 2016Background
- Euston Street Services, Inc. and the Mason Tenders District Council were parties to a CBA requiring employer contributions to several employee benefit funds and agreement to use the Funds’ arbitration procedures for disputes.
- The Funds sent notices of intent to arbitrate alleging unpaid contributions for the period March 28, 2007–December 28, 2010; an arbitration hearing was scheduled after adjournments.
- Euston received notice of the final arbitration hearing but did not appear. The Funds presented audit reports, payroll documents, and testimony.
- The arbitrator issued an award finding Euston liable for unpaid contributions, dues/PAC fees, interest, ERISA liquidated damages, and arbitration costs, totaling $34,666.94.
- Plaintiffs filed a § 301 petition to confirm the arbitration award after Euston failed to pay; Euston did not oppose or appear in the confirmation action.
- The district court treated the petition as an unopposed confirmation motion, confirmed the award, and directed entry of judgment plus post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitration award should be confirmed under LMRA § 301 | The award is final, based on documentary and testimonial evidence, and Euston breached the CBA | No opposition or argument was presented (Euston defaulted) | Confirmed: award enforced as judgment because it draws its essence from the CBA and no fraud or other basis to vacate was shown |
| Standard of review for unopposed confirmation | Confirmation is summary; unopposed petitions treated like unopposed summary judgment — plaintiffs entitled to judgment if record shows entitlement as a matter of law | N/A (no opposition filed) | Court applied unopposed-summary-judgment standard and found the undisputed record supported confirmation |
| Whether arbitrator exceeded authority or issued an award contrary to CBA | Award construes/applies the contract and remedies for unpaid contributions allowed by CBA/ERISA | N/A | Court declined to overturn: arbitrator at least arguably applied the CBA, so courts will not reweigh merits |
| Award of post-judgment interest | Plaintiffs sought statutory post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961 | N/A | Granted: post-judgment interest mandatory under § 1961, to accrue from entry of judgment until paid |
Key Cases Cited
- Local 802, Associated Musicians of Greater N.Y. v. Parker Meridien Hotel, 145 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 1998) (federal courts have jurisdiction to confirm labor arbitration awards under LMRA § 301)
- Local 97, Int’l Bhd. of Elect. Workers v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 196 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 1999) (arbitration award must draw its essence from the CBA; courts defer to arbitrator so long as award arguably construes or applies the contract)
- Harry Hoffman Printing, Inc. v. Graphic Communications Int’l Union, Local 261, 950 F.2d 95 (2d Cir. 1991) (serious legal error by arbitrator is not a basis to vacate if arbitrator arguably acted within authority)
- D.H. Blair & Co. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2006) (unopposed confirmation petitions are treated like motions for summary judgment and fail if undisputed facts do not show entitlement as a matter of law)
- Cappiello v. ICD Publ'ns, Inc., 720 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2013) (awards of post-judgment interest under § 1961 are mandatory)
- Westinghouse Credit Corp. v. D’Urso, 371 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2004) (§ 1961 post-judgment interest applies in actions confirming arbitration awards)