MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Petitioners Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, and Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educational and Industry Fund; Trustees of the New York City Carpenters Relief and Charity Fund; The Carpenter Contractor Alliance of Metropolitan New York; and The New York City District Council of Carpenters have petitioned to confirm an arbitration award issued against Respondent Earth Construction Corp. (the “Petition”). Petitioners also seek to recover the attorney’s fees and costs that they have incurred in petitioning to confirm that award. The Petition is unopposed, as Respondent did not appear at the underlying arbitration hearing and has not appeared before this Court. For the reasons below, the Petition is granted, but with a reduction in Petitioners’ request for attorney’s fees. I. Background A. Facts Petitioners brought this action under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (“LMRA”), as amended, 29 U.S.C. §185, to confirm and enforce an arbitrator’s award (the “Award”) rendered under a collective bargaining agreement (the “CBA”) involving Petitioner The New York City District Council of Carpenters (the “Union”) and Respondent Earth Construction Corp. Dkt. 1 (“Pet.”) 1. Petitioners Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, and Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educational and Industry Fund (the “ERISA Funds”) are employer and employee trustees of multiemployer labor-management trust funds organized and operated under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). Id. 3. Petitioner Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Relief and Charity Fund (the “Charity Fund”) are trustees of a charitable organization established under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. §501(c)(3). Id. 4. Petitioner The Carpenter Contractor Alliance of Metropolitan New York (collectively with the ERISA Funds and the Charity Fund, the “Funds”) is a not-for-profit corporation. Id. 5. The Union is a labor organization and the certified bargaining representative for certain employees of Respondent. Id. 6. Around March 9, 2012, Respondent became a member of the Building Contractors Association, Inc. Id. 8. In doing so, Respondent agreed to be bound by the CBA. Id.
9-14, Exh. B (“CBA”). The CBA required that Respondent send contributions to the Funds for all work performed by its employees within the trade and geographical jurisdiction of the CBA. Id. 15. It also required that Respondent make its books and payroll records available for an audit — to allow the Funds to ensure that Respondent was making the necessary benefit fund contributions under the CBA. Id. 16; CBA, Article XVI §1. Besides those requirements, the CBA mandated that Respondent comply with the Funds’ Collection Policy. Pet. 20; CBA Article XVI §3; see Pet., Exh. F (“Collection Policy”). The Collection Policy provided that “[i]n the event that an employer refuses to permit a[n]…audit upon request[,]…the Fund Office shall determine the estimated amount of the employer’s delinquent contributions based on the assumption that the employer’s weekly hours subject to contributions for each week of the requested audit period are the highest number of average hours reported per week for any period of four consecutive weeks during the audit period.” Collection Policy §IV(12). Per the CBA and the Collection Policy, Petitioners requested an audit of Respondent’s files from March 2016 through the present to determine whether Respondent had paid the proper contributions. Pet. 23. Respondent refused, however, to provide its books and records for the audit. Id. 24. The CBA provided that “[s]hould any dispute or disagreement arise between the parties hereto…concerning any claim arising from payments to the Fund of principal and/or interest which is allegedly due, either party may seek arbitration of the dispute before the impartial arbitrator.” CBA Article XVI §7. The CBA and Collection Policy also provided that, should the Funds have to arbitrate a dispute or sue for unpaid contributions, the Funds had a right to collect: (1) the delinquent contributions; (2) interest on the unpaid contributions at the prime rate of Citibank plus 2 percent ; (3) liquidated damages for 20 percent of the unpaid contributions; (4) reasonable costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the Funds in collecting the delinquencies; and (5) other legal or equitable relief that the Court deems appropriate. See Pet. 19; CBA Article XVI §6(a); Collection Policy §V. To comply with the CBA, Petitioners began arbitration before Roger E. Maher. Pet. 26. Arbitrator Maher held a hearing on November 21, 2020. See Pet., Exh. H (“Award”) at 1. Respondent was notified of the proceeding and the claims against it. Id.; Pet 26. But Respondent did not appear or request an adjournment. See Award at 1-2. Arbitrator Maher examined the evidence and rendered an award on November 21, 2020 (the “Award”). Id. at 1-3. Arbitrator Maher found that Respondent violated the CBA when it failed to permit the Funds to audit its books and records and ordered Respondent to pay the Funds $672,439.14, consisting of (1) an estimated principal deficiency of $474,476.20; (2) interest of $100,167.70; (3) liquidated damages of $94,895.24; (4) court costs of $400; (5) attorney’s fees of $1,500; and (6) arbitrator’s fees of $1,000. Id. at 3. The arbitrator also found that interest at the rate of 5.25 percent would accrue on the Award from when he issued the Award. Id. Arbitrator Maher sent the Award to Respondent via certified mail. Id. at 4; Pet. 26. As of the date of the filing of the Petition, Respondent had paid no portion of the Award. Pet. 30. B. Procedural Background On February 18, 2021, Petitioners filed the Petition to confirm Arbitrator Maher’s Award. According to the docket, Petitioners served Respondent with the Petition on February 28, 2021. See Dkt. 8. With no response from Respondent, Petitioners requested that the Petition be considered an unopposed motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 10. Respondent has not submitted an opposition or otherwise appeared in this action. II. Discussion A. The Arbitration Award 1. Applicable Law “The LMRA establishes a federal policy of promoting industrial stabilization through the collective bargaining agreement, with particular emphasis on private arbitration of grievances.” Nat’l Football League Mgmt. Council v. Nat’l Football League Players Ass’n, 820 F.3d 527, 536 (2d Cir. 2016) (quotations omitted). “Normally, confirmation of an arbitration award is a summary proceeding that merely makes what is already a final arbitration award a judgment of the court,” and “[o]nly a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached by the arbitrators is necessary to confirm the award.” D.H. Blair & Co. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95, 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (quotations omitted). As a result, judicial review of an arbitration award is “limited to determining whether the arbitration proceedings and award met the minimum legal standards established by” the LMRA. Nat’l Football League Mgmt. Council, 820 F.3d at 532. The Court “must simply ensure that the arbitrator was even arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of his authority and did not ignore the plain language of the contract.” Id. (quotations omitted). Under this standard, “even if an arbitrator makes mistakes of fact or law, [a district court] may not disturb an award so long as [the arbitrator] acted within the bounds of his bargained-for authority.” Id. In other words, “[a]s long as the award draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement and is not merely the arbitrator’s own brand of industrial justice, it must be confirmed.” Id. at 537 (quotations omitted). If, as here, a petition to confirm an arbitration award is unopposed, courts generally treat the petition “as akin to a motion for summary judgment.” D.H. Blair & Co., 462 F.3d at 109. Although the Court grants significant defense to the arbitrator’s decision, an unopposed confirmation petition must “fail where the undisputed facts fail to show that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. at 110 (quotations omitted). 2. Analysis Petitioners have shown that there is no genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment in their favor. Arbitrator Maher found that Respondent was bound by the CBA, Award at 2; Pet.
