LOCAL 144 v. GREATER NY HEALTH CARE FACILITIES

• Decision Date: 15 October 1980
• Docket Number: No. 80 Civ. 0342 (KTD).,80 Civ. 0342 (KTD).
• Citation: 498 F. Supp. 153
• Parties: LOCAL 144, HOTEL, HOSPITAL, NURSING HOME AND ALLIED SERVICES UNION, S.E.I.U., AFL-CIO, Plaintiff, v. GREATER NEW YORK HEALTH CARE FACILITIES ASSOCIATION, INC., Individually and on behalf of its member residential health care facilities, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

498 F. Supp. 153

LOCAL 144, HOTEL, HOSPITAL, NURSING HOME AND ALLIED SERVICES UNION, S.E.I.U., AFL-CIO, Plaintiff, v.GREATER NEW YORK HEALTH CARE FACILITIES ASSOCIATION, INC., Individually and on behalf of its member residential health care facilities, Defendant.

No. 80 Civ. 0342 (KTD).

United States District Court, S. D. New York.

October 15, 1980.

Vladeck, Elias, Vladeck & Engelhard, P. C., New York City, for plaintiff; Robert A. Cantore, Robert B. Stulberg, New York City, of counsel.

Shea, Gould, Climenko & Casey, New York City, for defendant.

OPINION

KEVIN THOMAS DUFFY, District Judge:

The parties to this action are also parties to a collective bargaining agreement.That agreement contains an arbitration clause.A dispute and subsequent arbitration led to an award which provided for an increase in pension benefits and contributions as well as an increase in payments to be made to the parties' welfare fund.The plaintiff now seeks to enforce this award by way of a summary judgment motion.Most of the defendant's arguments for avoiding enforcement have already been rejected by this court.Finding no genuine issues of material fact to remain regarding this arbitration award, I hereby grant plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

Summary judgment is properly granted in cases where there is no genuine issue of material fact.United States v. Diebold, Inc.,369 U.S. 654, 82 S.Ct. 993, 8 L.Ed.2d 176(1962).Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56(e), once a motion for summary judgment is made and supported by affidavits, the adverse party must in turn supply the court with facts demonstrating that a factual issue exists."Unsubstantiated assertions" by the opposing party will not suffice to allow a case to go to trial.SeeSEC v. Research Automation Corp.,585 F.2d 31, 33(2d Cir.1978).Here, the defendant does not dispute the existence of the award, its contents or the failure to comply with its terms.These uncontroverted facts form the basis of the plaintiff's motion.Rather, the defendant asserts that three issues of fact exist: first, whether there existed a conflict of interest on the part of the arbitrator; second, whether the award was withdrawn by the arbitrator, and third, whether the arbitrator exceeded his power under the agreement by issuing an award which jeopardized the financial soundness of the pension fund.

Defendant's argument that the validity of this arbitration award is undermined by the arbitrator's conflict of interest has been rejected already in Ottley v. Palm Tree Nursing Home, et al.,493 F.Supp. 910(S.D. N.Y.1980).There, I stated that the arbitrator's resignation in October of 1979, due to a conflict of interest did not operate retroactively to invalidate any of his awards.Thus, the arbitrator's conflict of interest is no longer a material issue in this case.

Defendant's second argument that the resignation letter from the arbitrator, Mr. Schmertz, (Lawson Affidavit, Exh. 1) and another letter from the defendant's representative, Mr. Lawson, (Lawson Affidavit, Exh. 2) together raise a factual issue as to whether the arbitrator withdrew his award was also rejected in the July 1, 1980 Opinion.That Opinion states that Mr. Schmertz's letter of resignation did not affect the validity of any prior awards nor act as a withdrawal.As a result, the defendant's letter of November, 1979, which interprets Mr. Schmertz's subsequent silence as a withdrawal of the award is without significance to this...