NORTHEAST REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS, UBCJA v. B & L MOVING AND INSTALLATION, INC.

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM & JUDGMENT ORDER granting in part and denying in part petitioner's 3 Motion to Confirm or Vacate Arbitration; granting respondent's Cross 10 Motion to Vacate Arbitration award; judgment for the sum of $423,872.00 and for $1,350.00 in favor of Northeast Regional Council of Carpenters, UBCJA, and against respondent B&L Moving & Installation, Inc.; and closing case Signed by Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 1/22/2015. (nr, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
NORTHEAST REGIONAL COUNCIL OF
CARPENTERS. UBCJA.
Plaintiff.

Civil Action No.: 14-4129 (CCC)

MEMORANDUM ORDER &
JUDGMENT

B & L MOVING AND INSTALLATION,
INC. a/k/a B & L GROUP USA, INC..
Defendant.
CECCHI, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on a motion of Petitioner Northeast Regional Council
of Carpenters, UBCJA (“Petitioner” or the “Union”) to confirm an arbitration award {ECF No.
3]
and on cross-motion of Respondents B & L Moving and Installation, Inc. (“B&LMI”) and B
&L
Group USA, Inc. (“Group USA”) (collectively, “Respondents”) to vacate an arbitration
award
[ECF No. 10]. This matter is decided without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78. It appear
ing
that:
1. Petitioner seeks to confirm the May 22. 2014 arbitration award (the “Award”) issued
by arbitrator LI. Pierson (the “Arbitrator”), Respondents seek to vacate the Award
with respect to Group USA on the grounds that Group USA is a non-signatory to the
Collective Bargaining Agreement (the “CBA”).
2. Petitioner and B&LMI are parties to the CBA. (Resp’ts’ Mot. at 2; Pet’r’s Opp’n Br.
at 6.) It is undisputed that Group USA is a non-signatory of the CBA. (Resp’ts’ Mot.
at 1; Pet’r’s Opp’n Br. at 12.)

3. The CBA prohibits an employer from “subcontract[ing] any work within the
jurisdiction of the Union which is to be performed at the job site except to a
contractor who holds an agreement with the [Union]

.

.

.

or who agrees in writing.

prior to or at the time of the execution of his subcontract, to be bound by the terms of
this Agreement.” (Pet., Ex. C at 24.) Also pursuant to this section of the CBA, a
signatory is prohibited from “participat[ing] in the creation of or operation of new or
double-breasted corporations for the purposes of avoiding the obligations of this
[CBA].” (Id)
4. The Arbitrator conducted a hearing on April 17, 2014; Group USA did not appear at
the hearing or otherwise respond to the Union’s allegations. (Pet., Ex. A at 8.) The
Arbitrator issued the Award on May 22, 2014 against Respondents pursuant to his
findings that:
B & L Moving & Installation, Inc. is a “single” employer with, and
also known as, B & L Group USA Inc., operating together as a
“double breasted” entity, and obligated to apply the terms and
conditions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Union,
pursuant to Article XIX on the “131 Morristown Road,” Basking
Ridge job-site. As the Union evidenced, B&L did not hire member
Carpenters to perform the work and failed to meet its contractual
obligations to employ Union carpenters to perform work within the
jurisdiction of the Carpenter. By violating the Agreement, the
Union lost work opportunities and Member-Carpenters lost wages
and benefits.

(ii)
5. “In a proceeding to confirm or vacate an arbitration award, a court’s review is

exceedingly narrow,”

Eichleay Corp. v. Int’l Ass’n of Bridge. Structural &

Ornamental Iron Workers, 944 F.2d 1047, 1055-56 (3d Cir. 1991). Indeed. “[a]s long
as the arbitrator’s award draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement
2

• the award is legitimate.” United Paperworkers Int’l Union. AFL-CIO v. Misco.
Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 36 (1987) (citation omitted).

Thus, if an arbitrator is “even

arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of his
authority, the fact that a court is convinced he committed serious error does not
suffice to overturn his decision.” E. Associated Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers
of Am.. Dist. 17, 531 U.S. 57, 62 (2000) (citation omitted). However, “an arbitrator
may not venture beyond the bounds of his or her authority.” Matteson v. Ryder Sys.
Inc., 99 F.3d 108, 112 (3d Cir. 1996).
6. With respect to Group USA, the Court has reviewed the parties’ submissions and
finds that the Arbitrator exceeded his authority. “[A]s a matter of contract, no party
can be forced to arbitrate unless that party has entered an agreement to do so.”
Pritzker v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 7 F.3d 1110, 1114 (3d Cir.
1993) (citing PaineWebber, Inc. v. Hartmann, 921 F.2d 507, 511 (3d Cir. 1990)). It is
well settled in the Third Circuit that “the question of arbitrability—whether a
collective bargaining agreement creates a duty for the parties to arbitrate the
particular grievance—is undeniably an issue for judicial determination. Unless the
parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise, the question of whether the
parties agreed to arbitrate is to be decided by the court. not the arbitrator.” Laborers’
Int’l Union of N. Am.. AFL-CIO v. Foster Wheeler Corp., 868 F.2d 573. 576 (3d Cir.
1989).
7, This Court has held, on numerous occasions, that a non-siguatory to the CBA cannot

be bound by an arbitrator’s decision—even on the grounds that it acted as a doublebreasted entity for a signatory entity—unless the Court made such a determination
3

prior to the arbitration or the non-signatory waives a judicial determination by
arguing before the arbitrator on the merits. N. Jersey Interiors, LLC v. New Jersey
Reg’l Council of Carpenters, 2012 WL 84431, at *3 (D.N.J. Jan. 10, 2012)
(“However, the Arbitrator’s determination that [New Jersey Installations, LLCJ was
operating as a ‘single employer’ with [North Jersey Interiors, LLC] does not supplant
a judicial determination that [North Jersey Interiors, LLCj is subject to the CBA’s
arbitration clause by virtue of such status. Absent this judicial determination, the
Arbitrator had no authority to arbitrate the dispute between [North Jersey Interiors,
LLC] and the [New Jersey Regional Council of Carpenters].”): Duvall Contracting
LLC v. New Jersey Bldg. Laborers’ Dist. Council, 2011 WL 6303388, at *3 (D.N.J.
Dec. 16, 2011) (noting that “an arbitrator’s double-breasting determination cannot
bind the non-signatory to a CBA unless a district court has already determined that
the two entities are a single employer” but holding that non-signatory waives any
judicial determination on the double-breasting issue if it argues before the arbitrator
on the merits); ECC Sys., LLC v. New Jersey Reg’l Council of Carpenters, 2011 WL
4020978, at *1 (D.N.J. Sept. 9, 2011) (“It is undisputed that [ECC Systems, LLC]
was not a signatory to the labor agreement with the Union. The Arbitrator had no
authority to arbitrate the dispute between [ECC Systems. LLCj and the Union—
absent a detennination by the Court that [ECC Systems. LLCJ was contractually
bound to arbitrate.”);
Contracting, LLC, 2011 WL 3475532, at *l (D.NJ. Aug. 9, 2011); New Jersey Reg’l
Council of Carpenters v. Heartland Dcv, Co., 2010 WL 1706961. at *6 (D.N.J. Apr.
27, 2010) (“Accordingly. because Heartland Building is not a signatory to the CBA,
4

and the arbitrator was without authority to issue an award against it, the arbitrator’s
award against Heartland Building is vacated.”)
8. Accordingly, because Group USA never obtained a judicial determination on the
double-breasting issue nor waived this right by arguing on the merits, the Arbitrator
was without authority to bind Group USA in the Award. Put simply, “[t]hat question
is for the district court, not an arbitrator.” Laborers’ Int’l Union of N. Am., AFL-CIO
v. Foster Wheeler Corp., 868 F.2d 573, 577 (3d Cir. 1989).
9. With respect to B&LMI, no party disputes the Arbitrator’s authority to bind this
entity given its status as a signatory to the CBA. Thus, the Court will confirm the
Award against B&LMI.

__________

Accordingly, IT IS on this

day of

,2015

ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award [ECF No. 3] is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; and it is further
ORDERED that Respondents’ cross-motion to vacate an arbitration award [ECF No. 10]
is hereby GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment shall be entered in favor of Petitioner
Northeast Regional Council of Carpenters, UBCJA, and against Respondent B & L Moving &
Installation, Inc. as follows: (1) B & L Moving & Installation, Inc. shall make payment to
Petitioner in the amount of $423,872.00 for lost work opportunities, lost wages and lost benefits,
and (2) B & L Moving & Installation, Inc. shall pay $1,350.00 to Petitioner for one half of the
Arbitrator’s total fee as required by the CBA; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall close this case.
SO ORDERED.
.1

7

HON. CLAIRE C. CECCHI
United States District Judge

6