MANISH SHAH, District Judge.
Plaintiff Administrative District Council 1 of Illinois of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, AFL-CIO ("Union"), through its attorneys, respectfully moves pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(2) for entry of a default judgment and final order against Defendants Piotr Lelo, a/k/a Peter Lelo ("Mr. Lelo"), Beata Lelo ("Ms. Lelo"), Monika Urbaniak ("Ms. Urbaniak"), Keystone-1 Plastering, Inc. ("Keystone"), Chicago Renovations Group, Inc. ("Renovations"), and Chicago Group Renovations, Inc. ("Group") (together, "Defendants"). In support of this motion, the Union submits as follows:
1. This action is a suit under § 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 141, 185, to enforce a labor arbitration award.
2. As set forth in the complaint, the Union is a "labor organization" within the meaning of
3. Mr. Lelo is an individual who is an "employer" within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 152(2), lives within this district, is related by blood or marriage to Ms. Lelo and Ms. Urbaniak, at relevant times owned and operated Keystone and operated or helped operate Renovations and Group, and on information and belief had direct or indirect ownership interests in Renovations and Group. (Note: The essence of the assertions in ¶¶ 3-42 were all made in the Union's unanswered complaint. For convenience, the Union will omit the prefatory phrase "As set forth in the Complaint" from these paragraphs.)
4. Ms. Lelo is an individual who is an "employer" within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 152(2), lives within this district, is related by blood or marriage to Mr. Lelo and Ms. Urbaniak, at relevant times owned Renovations, and on information and belief had a direct or indirect ownership interest in Group.
5. Ms. Urbaniak is an individual who is an "employer" within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 152(2), lives within this district, is related by blood or marriage to Mr. Lelo and Ms. Lelo, at relevant times owned Group, and on information and belief had direct or indirect ownership interests in Renovations.
6. Keystone was, at relevant times, an "employer" within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 152(2), and an Illinois corporation in the plastering and masonry business that maintained its principal place of business and did business within this district, and has been dissolved.
7. Renovations was, at relevant times, an "employer" within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 152(2), and an Illinois corporation in the plastering and masonry business that maintained its principal place of business and did business within this district, and has been dissolved.
8. Group was, at relevant times, an "employer" within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 152(2), and an Illinois corporation in the plastering and masonry business that maintained its principal place of business and did business within this district, and has been dissolved.
9. On or around January 11, 2007, Mr. Lelo signed a settlement agreement with the Union on behalf of himself personally and on behalf of Keystone ("2007 Agreement").
10. On or around January 12, 2007, Mr. Lelo signed a short form collective bargaining agreement with the Union on behalf of Keystone to govern terms and conditions of employment within the plastering trade ("Plaster CBA").
11. By their terms, the Plaster CBA and the 2007 Agreement have remained in effect since they were signed.
12. The Plaster CBA incorporates the substantive terms of the agreements negotiated from time to time between local affiliates of the Union and an employer association (the "Plaster Association"), and later between the Plaster Association and the Union itself (the "Plaster Association Agreement").
13. The Plaster Association Agreement provides, among other things, that employers must assign all work covered by the contract to members of the bargaining unit, pay specified wages and fringe benefit trust funds contributions on all such work, and report all work, and also provides that all disputes as to the meaning of or compliance with the labor agreement will be resolved by a joint arbitration board ("Plaster JAB").
14. On or around March 19, 2009, Mr. Lelo signed a short form collective bargaining agreement with the Union on behalf of Keystone to govern terms and conditions of employment for work within the bricklaying and masonry trade ("Brick CBA").
15. By its terms, the Brick CBA has remained in effect since it was signed.
16. The Brick CBA incorporates the substantive terms of the agreements negotiated from time to time between the Union and various employer associations (the "Brick Association Agreement").
17. The Brick Association Agreement provides, among other things, that employers must utilize eligible members of the bargaining unit to perform bargaining unit work, pay specified wages and fringe benefit fund contributions for such work, and report all work, and also provides that all disputes as to the meaning of or compliance with the labor agreement will be resolved by a joint arbitration board ("Brick JAB").
18. On or around July 13, 2011, Ms. Lelo signed a collective bargaining agreement on behalf of Renovations with Local No. 5 of the Operative Plasterers and Cement Masons International Association ("Local 5").
19. The contract between Renovations and Local 5 provided for Renovations' employees to perform work within the geographic and craft jurisdiction of the Union, but to do so under terms and conditions established by the contract with Local 5, including recognition of Local 5 as the employees' bargaining representative.
20. The collective bargaining agreements between the Union and the Plaster Association, and between Local 5 and the Plaster Association, provided at the relevant times that disputes as to the meaning of or compliance with those contracts would be resolved by a combined joint arbitration board ("Combined JAB") comprised of appointees of the Plaster Association, Local 5, and the Union.
21. By letter of December 9, 2011, the Union informed each of the Defendants of a grievance it initiated asserting that each of them is sufficiently related to Keystone and each other as to make each of them liable for the obligations undertaken by Keystone in its labor contract with the Union and as to bind each of them, whether as a corporation or personally, to that contract and make each responsible for all violations of it by one another.
22. By letter of January 5, 2012, the Union provided each of the Defendants with notice of a hearing before the Combined JAB that would be held on January 26, 2012, to resolve that grievance.
23. The hearing before the Combined JAB took place as scheduled on January 26, 2012, with representatives of the Union and affiliated fringe benefit trust funds appearing in support of the grievance, with nobody appearing on behalf of the Defendants in opposition, and with the arbitrators being provided with copies of a letter from Mr. Lelo that was dated January 25 and was apparently left at the Union's offices on the morning of the hearing.
24. After receiving explanations as to how the grievance and hearing notice were provided to the Defendants, and information about the residences of the Defendants and the relationship among them, the arbitrators decided to proceed with the hearing.
25. The arbitrators received copies of the charges and heard arguments, testimony, and evidence presented by the Union, asked the Union representatives questions and received their answers, read the letter from Mr. Lelo, and examined various documents that were presented; and then considered the case and rendered their decision.
26. The arbitrators subsequently issued a written decision (the "2012 Award").
27. The 2012 Award explained that based on the evidence presented, each of the Defendants was found to be "one and the same for purposes of their collective bargaining agreements" and all were found to be bound to the contract Mr. Lelo signed on behalf of Keystone and responsible for violations of that agreement by themselves and each other, and the arbitrators further found that (1) Keystone and Mr. Lelo personally continued to be responsible for their contract and all violations since 2007, (2) Keystone and Mr. Lelo were also responsible for all violations the other Defendants had committed since Renovations and Group began operating, (3) Ms. Lelo, Ms. Urbaniak, Renovations, and Group were each responsible for all violations by themselves and each other since July 1, 2011, and (4) Ms. Lelo, Ms. Urbaniak, Renovations, and Group were also each responsible for the obligations from before that date of Keystone and Mr. Lelo under both their collective bargaining agreement with the Union and the separate agreement.
28. The 2012 Award also ruled that it would be a violation of the contract to which each of the Defendants was found bound for any of them to perform any work within the scope of the contract Mr. Lelo signed for Keystone with the Union, and that the Union could bring a further claim if it chose to do so in order to seek additional damages for further performance of work.
29. The Union served the 2012 Award on each of the Defendants.
30. The Defendants failed to comply with the 2012 Award and the Union filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against each of them to enforce that award, with the matter designated as Case No. 12 C 3995 ("2012 Suit").
31. In order to resolve the 2012 Suit, the Union and the Defendants entered into a settlement agreement, effective September 17, 2012 ("2012 Settlement").
32. The 2012 Settlement articulated the parties' agreement that the Union is a "labor organization" within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 152(5), that each of the Defendants is an "employer" within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 152(2), and that the settlement agreement was an agreement between employers and a labor organization within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 185.
33. Pursuant to the 2012 Settlement, the Union voluntarily dismissed the 2012 Suit and the case was terminated effective October 3, 2012.
34. By virtue of the 2012 Settlement, each of the Defendants agreed he, she, or it was required to make various payments to the Union, that all were prohibited from performing any work within the Union's geographic and craft jurisdiction until they had made all payments and provided a bond or cash bond in the minimum amount of $50,000.00, that each would be liable for any violations by any of them, that any disputes regarding the meaning of or compliance with the agreement would be resolved pursuant to the applicable provisions of the then-current Brick CBA, and that service of any notices, awards, process, or any other documents could be made through a designated agent for receipt of service or on Mr. Lelo, Ms. Lelo, or Ms. Urbaniak, and that any such service would be deemed valid service on each of them.
35. By letter of March 27, 2014, the Union informed the Defendants that a hearing would be held before the Brick JAB to consider a request that Mr. Lelo had made that a lien on his home be lifted and to consider questions raised by the Union and various fringe benefit trust funds ("Funds") about compliance by the Defendants with their obligations under the 2012 Settlement and the collective bargaining agreements.
36. The hearing was held before the JAB as scheduled on April 9, 2014, with a representative of the Funds appearing for them, two representatives of the Union and the Union's lawyer appearing for it, and Mr. Lelo and the lawyer for the Defendants appearing for them.
37. The parties presented their positions, evidence, and arguments on all matters before the arbitrators.
38. After hearing the presentations, the arbitrators recessed to consider the case, returned to announce their decision, and subsequently issued a written award ("2014 Award"), a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A.
39. The 2014 Award found the Defendants had performed 2,280 hours of covered work in violation of the 2012 Settlement and the collective bargaining agreements, and ordered them to pay a total of $159,675.60 in damages to the Funds, the Union, and a local affiliate of the Union; ordered them to pay interest at the rate of 10% a year on the damages from April 9, 2014, until payment is made; ordered them to reimburse all legal fees and costs incurred by the Union and/or the Funds starting with the date the award was mailed; and ruled that the lien on Mr. Lelo's property would not be lifted.
40. The Union served the 2014 Award on the Defendants on July 22, 2014, along with a letter urging them to comply with the Award, making service through their authorized agent for receipt of service, through the attorney who represented them at the hearing, and by mailing copies to them at the address at which it had previously corresponded with them; and each of the Defendants received service of the Award in one or more of the agreed methods no later than July 24, 2014.
41. Notwithstanding their obligations under the 2014 Award, none of the Defendants has complied with it.
42. The Defendants' failure to abide by the 2014 Award is a breach of the collective bargaining agreements and the 2012 Settlement to which each of them are bound.
43. As set forth in the Return of Service forms filed with the Clerk on December 11, 2014, the summons and complaint were served on each of the Defendants through personal service on the agreed agent for service for each, on December 5, 2014, making their answers or responsive pleadings due on December 26.
44. None of the Defendants has answered or filed a responsive pleading.
45. The Union seeks an order enforcing the Award, requiring the Defendants to make the payments as ordered in the Award and to comply with the other provisions of the Award, and providing an appropriate judgment.
46. Even if the Defendants had answered, it would be virtually impossible for them to have presented a meritorious defense for at least two reasons. First, labor arbitration awards are granted the highest level of deference that can be imagined. See, e.g., United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593 (1960); United Paperworkers International Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 41 (1987); Sullivan v. Lemoncello, 36 F.3d 676 (7th Cir. 1994); Local 879, Allied Industrial Workers v. Chrysler Marine Corp., 819 F.2d 786, 789-90 (7th Cir. 1987). Second, the Defendants have allowed the statute of limitations to run and therefore have waived any right they would otherwise have to challenge the 2014 Award or to defend against an enforcement action based on any claims they could have presented in a timely challenge. Chauffeurs, Teamsters, Warehousemen, and Helpers, Local Union No. 135 v. Jefferson Trucking Co., 628 F.2d 1023, 1027 (7th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1125 (1981); International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150 v. Centor Contractors, Inc., 831 F.2d 1309, 1311 (7th Cir. 1987); Sullivan v. Gilchrist, 87 F.3d 867, 871 (7th Cir. 1996).
47. The three components of the monetary judgment the Union seeks are the underlying damages, interest, and reimbursement of the fees and costs, all as provided for in the 2014 Award.
48. As set forth in the complaint, and shown in the 2014 Award, the underlying damages assessed by the arbitrators were $159,675.60.
49. The 2014 Award provided for 10% annual interest on the damages from April 9, 2014 through the date of payment, which comes to $11,975.67 through January 9, 2015.
50. The fees and costs for which the Union seeks reimbursement total $4,139.00, comprising $3,564.00 for fees and $575.00 for costs.
51. As of the completion of this motion and the related documents, the Union's lawyer has devoted a total of 12.85 hours to this matter, and anticipates devoting at least two more hours to the case after the motion and related papers are completed. This motion is accompanied by a declaration from the Union's lawyer, which describes and categorizes the work. Exh. B, ¶¶ 5, 7.
52. As set forth in the attached declaration, the Union's lawyer actually performed the work for which reimbursement is sought, except for the two hours of anticipated future work; and did so based on a professional judgment that such work was necessary to represent the interests of his client. Id., ¶ 6.
53. As is also set forth in the attached declaration, the Union and Benefit Funds have shared the fees and costs. Id., ¶ 8.
54. The Union's lawyer charges the Union and the Funds $230.00 an hour and $250.00 respectively for work of this sort, for an average hourly rate of $240.00, which the Union respectfully submits is neither unreasonable nor excessive in light of his skill and experience. Id., ¶¶ 9-10.
55. The Union also seeks recovery of $575.00 in costs, comprising the filing fee, the fee for service of process charged by the service agency, and the set cost figure charged for paralegal time for three electronic filings. Id., ¶ 11.
56. The basis for all relief requested is stated in the 2014 Award attached as Exhibit A, and in the declaration attached as Exhibit B. Accordingly, the Union respectfully submits that all the information needed to justify entry of a final order is presented here, and that no useful purpose would be served by requiring a prove-up hearing or further proceedings.
WHEREFORE, the Union respectfully asks the Court to grant its motion and enter judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, in the form attached or otherwise, for $175,790.27, and ordering them to pay interest at 10% annually on $171,651.27 of that amount from January 10, 2015, through the date of payment, and interest at the statutory rate on the remaining $4,139.00.
IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOTH ARTICLE X OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT AND WORKING RULES BETWEEN ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICT COUNCIL 1 OF ILLINOIS OF THE I.U.B.A.C. AND THE SIGNATORY CONTRACTORS, A HEARING WAS HELD ON APRIL 9, 2014 AT THE ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICT COUNCIL 1 OFFICE, 660 N, INDUSTRIAL DRIVE, ELMHURST, ILLINOIS 60126 TO CONSIDER A REQUEST BY PETER
REPRESENTATIVE PRESENT FOR ADMINSTRATIVE DISTRICT COUNCIL 1 FUND OFFICE: CHRIS LAUGHLIN
REPRESENTATIVE PRESENT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICT COUNCIL I: BARRY BENNETT, JACEK PROBOLA AND MIKE VOLEPENTESTA
REPRESENTATIVE PRESENT FOR KEYSTONE 1 — PLASTERING, INC., CHICAGO GROUP RENOVATIONS, INC., CHICAGO RENOVATIONS GROUP, INC., CHICAGO RENOVATION GROUP, PETER LELO, BEATA LELO, AND MONIKA URBANIAK: PETER LELO, ALONG WITH TODD MILLER ATTORNEY FOR CONTRACTOR.
KEYSTONE 1 — PLASTERING, INC. HAS A CURRENT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, WHICH INCORPORATES THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICT COUNCIL 1 AND THE MIDWEST WALL AND CEILING CONTRACTORS. AND WHICH PETER LELO SIGNED ON BEHALF OF KEYSTONE 1 — PLASTERING ON JANUARY 12, 2007, AND KEYSTONE 1 — PLASTERING, INC. HAS ANOTHER CURRENT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, WHICH INCORPORATES THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICT COUNCIL 1 AND THE CONTRACTORS THAT BARGAIN THROUGH THE NORTHERN ILLINOIS MASON EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, AND WHICH WAS SIGNED ON MARCH 19, 2009 BY PETER LELO. PREVIOUS DECISIONS OF THE APPLICABLE JOINT ARBITRATION BOARDS FOUND THAT EACH OF THE. BUSINESSES AND INDIVIDUALS NAMED IN THE PREVIOUS PARAGRAPH WERE BOUND THROUGH THEIR CONDUCT TO THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS, IN ADDITION, EACH OF THE BUSINESSES AND INDIVIDUALS NAMED IN THE PREVIOUS PARAGRAPH ENTERED INTO A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICT COUNCIL 1 EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 17, 2012, WITH THAT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PROVIDING AMONG OTHER THINGS THAT EACH OF THE INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES LISTED ARE BOUND TO THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS ALONG WITH THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. THESE BUSINESSES AND INDIVIDUALS WILL BE REFERRED TO TOGETHER IN THE REST OF THE AWARD AS THE "CONTRACTOR", AND ALL OBLIGATIONS ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF EACH OF THESE INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES.
THE REPRESENTATIVES FOR ALL PARTIES AGREED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE HEARING THAT IN ORDER TO MAKE SCHEDULING EASIER, THE MATTERS PRESENTED AT THIS HEARING AND ALL FUTURE MATTERS INVOLVING THESE PARTIES WOULD BE HEARD BY THE JOINT ARBITRATION BOARD THAT EXISTS UNDER THE CONTRACT BETWEEN ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICT COUNCIL 1 AND THE CONTRACTORS THAT BARGAIN THROUGH THE NORTHERN ILLINOIS MASON EMPLOYERS COUNCIL.
AT THE BEGINNING OF THE HEARING, BARRY BENNETT EXPLAINED THAT PETER LELO REQUESTED THE LIEN PLACED ON HIS PROPERTY BE RELEASED. PETER LELO QUESTIONED WHY THERE IS A LIEN ON HIS PROPERTY BECAUSE HE SAYS. HE IS CURRENT WITH HIS PAYMENTS ON THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 17, 2012. TODD MILLER SPOKE AND STATED PETER LELO IS IN A POSITION TODAY TO PAY THE BALANCE OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND WOULD LIKE THE LIEN RELEASED FROM HIS PROPERTY. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNION CLAIMED THAT PETER LELO AND ONE OR MORE OF THE NAMED. BUSINESSES PERFORMED BARGAINING UNIT WORK IN VIOLATION OF THE. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS ON THREE SEPARATE JOBS BETWEEN AUGUST AND DECEMBER 2013. THE MEMBERS OF THE JOINT ARBITRATION BOARD CAREFULLY CONSIDERED WHAT THEY SAID ABOUT SEEING AND TALKING TO MR. LELO ON THOSE JOB SITES AND THE OTHER EVIDENCE THEY PRESENTED TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIMS, ALONG WITH MR. LELO'S EXPLANATION OF WHAT HE WAS DOING ON THOSE JOB SITES, WHY THE PERMITS OR OTHER INFORMATION IDENTIFIED ONE OF THE CONTRACTOR BUSINESSES, AND THE WORK HE SAID HE WAS DOING IN LOCATIONS OUTSIDE ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICT COUNCIL 1'S JURISDICTION. WE ALSO CONSIDERED THE OTHER TESTIMONY BY MR. LELO AND BY THE UNION REPRESENTATIVES, THE PICTURES AND DOCUMENTS THAT WERE SUBMITTED, THE OTHER EVIDENCE THE INDIVIDUALS AT THE HEARING PRESENTED, THE ANSWERS THAT WERE GIVEN TO QUESTIONS ASKED BY MEMBERS OF THE JOINT ARBITRATION BOARD AND THE PARTIES, AND THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES.
BASED ON THE CONCLUSIONS THE MEMBERS OF THE JOINT ARBITRATION BOARD REACHED FROM THE FACTS, EVIDENCE, AND ARGUMENTS PRESENTED TO THEM, AND THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS AND THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, THE JOINT ARBITRATION BOARD FINDS THAT THE CONTRACTOR VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT PROHIBIT THE CONTRACTOR FROM PERFORMING BARGAINING UNIT WORK UNLESS CONDITIONS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN SATISFIED ARE MET, AND ALSO VIOLATED THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS, INCLUDING THE PROVISIONS THAT REQUIRE THAT BARGAINING UNIT WORK BE PERFORMED BY ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES AND BE PROPERLY REPORTED AND THAT THE CONTRACTUALLY SPECIFIED WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS FUND CONTRIBUTIONS BE PAID ON ALL SUCH WORK, THE JOINT ARBITRATION BOARD FINDS THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 240 HOURS OF WORK EACH BY S BRICKLAYERS DURING A PERIOD OF SIX WEEKS FOR A TOTAL OF 1,200 HOURS AND TWO WEEKS OF WORK BY 3 PLASTERERS FOR A TOTAL OF 240 HOURS ON THE JOB ON INDIANAPOLIS BLVD., IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 2 WEEKS OP WORK BY AN AVERAGE OF FOUR AND A HALF BRICKLAYERS TOTALING 360 HOURS FOR THE JOB ON SOUTH PULASKI, AND IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 480 HOURS OF WORK BY BRICKLAYERS FOR THE JOB IN MELROSE PARK, FOR A GRAND TOTAL OF 2,040 HOURS OF IMPROPER WORK BY BRICKLAYERS AND 240 HOURS OF IMPROPER WORK BY PLASTERERS. THE JOINT ARBITRATION BOARD ALSO FINDS THE CONTRACTOR EMPLOYED 12 INELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES TO PERFORM BARGAINING UNIT WORK DURING THIS TIME AND ON THESE JOBS.
AS A REMEDY FOR THESE VIOLATIONS, THE JOINT ARBITRATION BOARD FIRST ORDERS THE CONTRACTOR TO MAKE LOST CONTRIBUTION EQUIVALENT DAMAGE PAYMENTS TO THE HEALTH & WELFARE, LOCAL 21 PENSION, ANNUITY, AND DCTC FUNDS, EQUAL TO WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR ALL SUCH HOURS IF THERE HAD BEEN PROPER COMPLIANCE, AND TO MAKE A SEPARATE LOST HOURLY DUES EQUIVALENT DAMAGES PAYMENT TO ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICT COUNCIL 1 EQUAL TO THE HOURLY DUES WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN PAID IF THERE HAD BEEN PROPER COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT, THESE DAMAGE PAYMENTS AND ALL OTHER DAMAGE PAYMENTS WILL BE BASED ON THE RATES IN EFFECT DURING THE TIME THE WORK IN QUESTION WAS PERFORMED, WHICH WE FIND WAS FROM AUGUST THOUGH DECEMBER 2013.
NEXT, THE JOINT ARBITRATION BOARD FURTHER FINDS THAT THE CONTRACTOR MUST PAY $10,500,00 TO LOCAL 21 ILLINOIS FOR LOST INITIATION FEE DAMAGES AND LOST MONTHLY DUES DAMAGES ON TWELVE WORKERS.
IN ADDITION, THE JOINT ARBITRATION BOARD IS ASSESSING LOST WAGE DAMAGES AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR TO COMPENSATE FOR WAGES WHICH WERE NOT PAID TO MEMBERS OF THE BARGAINING UNIT BECAUSE OF THE VIOLATIONS OF CONTRACT. BY EMPLOYING INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE NOT ELIGIBLE TO PERFORM BARGAINING UNIT WORK UNDER THE CONTRACT, THE CONTRACTOR DEPRIVED EMPLOYEES WHO WERE ELIGIBLE TO PERFORM SUCH WORK OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO IT AND TO EARN WAGES. ALSO, WE THINK IT IS LIKELY THE CONTRACTOR PAID THE WORKERS WHO ACTUALLY PERFORMED THE WORK SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN THE CONTRACTUAL WAGE. RATE. AS A REMEDY FOR THIS PART OF THE VIOLATION, WE ORDER THE CONTRACTOR TO PAY DAMAGES EQUAL To THE TOTAL NUMBER OF HOURS OF WORK MULTIPLIED BY THE HOURLY WAGE RATES IN EFFECT WHEN THE WORK WAS DONE.
BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO IDENTIFY THE INDIVIDUAL BRICKLAYERS AND PLASTERERS WHO WOULD HAVE RECEIVED THE WORK OPPORTUNITIES AND EARNED THE WAGES IF THE CONTRACTOR HAD NOT BEEN IN VIOLATION, WE ORDER THAT THIS PORTION OF THE DAMAGES BE DIVIDED, ONE PART TO BE DIVIDED BETWEEN THE HEALTH 84 WELFARE, LOCAL 21 PENSION, ANNUITY, AND DCTC FUNDS, DIVIDED IN PROPORTION TO EACH OF THOSE FUNDS' CONTRIBUTION RATES, AND THE. OTHER PART TO THE DISTRICT COUNCIL. WE BELIEVE ORDERING THESE PAYMENTS TO BE MADE TO THESE BENEFIT FUNDS AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICT COUNCIL WILL BEST SERVE THE INTERESTS OF THE ENTIRE GROUP OF BARGAINING UNIT MEMBERS WHO WERE IMPROPERLY DEPRIVED OF WORK OPPORTUNITIES BY THE CONTRACTOR'S IMPROPER ACTIONS. THE EXACT DIVISION OF THESE LOST WAGE DAMAGES WILL BE MADE IN SUCH A WAY AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE TOTAL OWED TO THE FOUR BENEFIT FUNDS AND TO ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICT COUNCIL 1, AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT AMOUNTS OWED TO THE FUNDS FOR LOST CONTRIBUTION EQUIVALENT DAMAGES AND TO ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICT COUNCIL 1 FOR LOST HOURLY DUES EQUIVALENT DAMAGES, WILL BE THE SAME. WE HAVE MADE SOME APPROXIMATIONS AND ADJUSTMENTS AS WE THINK BEST IN THE ALLOCATIONS AMONG THE FOUR FRINGE BENEFIT FUNDS TO REFLECT THE DIFFERENT ALLOCATION RATES TO THOSE FUNDS UNDER THE BRICKLAYER AND PLASTERER AGREEMENTS.
THE JOINT ARBITRATION BOARD FINDS THAT THE CONTRACTOR MUST PAY DAMAGES AS SHOWN TO THE DESIGNATED FRINGE BENEFIT FUNDS AND TO ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICT COUNCIL 1 AS FOLLOWS:
IF THE UNION OR THE FUNDS OBTAIN EVIDENCE OF ADDITIONAL WORK PERFORMED IN VIOLATION OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT OR THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, THEY MAY FILE A NEW GRIEVANCE AND THE JOINT ARBITRATION BOARD WILL CONSIDER AWARDING FURTHER DAMAGES, IF THERE IS ANY SUCH FURTHER CLAIM, IT WILL BE A NEW MATTER BECAUSE THE JOINT ARBITRATION BOARD BELIEVES THIS DECISION RESOLVES EVERYTHING PRESENTED TO US AS PART OF THE CURRENT GRIEVANCE.
BECAUSE WE FOUND SIGNIFICANT VIOLATIONS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS THE JOINT ARBITRATION BOARD DOES NOT AGREE TO PETER LELO'S REQUEST TO REMOVE THE LIEN ON HIS PROPERTY.
THE JOINT ARBITRATION BOARD ORDERS THE CONTRACTOR TO PAY INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 10% A YEAR ON THE FULL DAMAGE AMOUNT AWARDED HERE, FROM APRIL 9, 2014 UNTIL FULL PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE, ALSO, UNLESS THE CONTRACTOR FULLY COMPLIES WITH THIS AWARD WITHIN 14 DAYS OF THE DATE IT IS MAILED TO IT, IT MUST REIMBURSE THE UNION AND/OR THE BENEFIT FUNDS FOR ALL COSTS AND LEGAL FEES STARTING WITH THE DATE THE AWARD WAS MAILED TO IT.
I, Barry M. Bennett, of full age, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, declare under penalty of perjury as follows:
1. I have personal knowledge of the information contained in this declaration, and if called upon to do so I would be prepared to testify to this information.
2. I am an attorney admitted to the regular and trial bars of this Court, as well as the bars of numerous other federal and state courts.
3. I am a partner in the firm Dowd, Bloch, Bennett & Cervone and in connection with this position I have primary responsibility for representation of Administrative District Council 1 of Illinois of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, AFL-CIO ("Union"), in the pending suit against Piotr Lelo, a/k/a Peter Lelo, Beata Lelo, Monika Urbaniak, Keystone-1 Plastering, Inc., Chicago Renovations Group, Inc., and Chicago Group Renovations, Inc. ("Defendants"), designated as Case No. 14 C 9447.
4. Through the time of completing this declaration and the motion and related papers which it accompanies, I have devoted a total of 12.85 hours to this matter.
5. My time on the case to date has consisted of the following:
6. I did, in fact, perform all the work listed in ¶ 5, and I did so based on a professional judgment that it was necessary in order to represent the Union properly.
7. I anticipate that after filing this motion, I will devote at least two additional hours of work to the case in preparing for and attending the hearing on my motion, examining the order and judgment I hope will be issued, and communicating with client representatives and the Company, and therefore I also seek reimbursement on behalf for that additional work.
8. The fees and expenses of this case were divided between the Union and the Funds.
9. Our firm charges the Union for my time at the rate of $230.00 an hour for work involving litigation and we charge the Funds at the rate of $250.00 for such work.
10. I have been a licensed attorney since 1980. I received my undergraduate degree from the University of Michigan and my law degree from Harvard Law School. I joined my current firm as a partner in July 1997. Before that, I worked at another Chicago firm for over eleven years and was a shareholder and director there for over seven years. I have worked exclusively in the fields of labor and employment during my more than 25 years with these two firms, and I devoted most of my time as a lawyer before that to those fields. I am a Fellow in the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers, a former member of the Board of Directors of the AFL-CIO Lawyers Coordinating Committee, and have been included in the list of "Illinois Super Lawyers" for the last several years. I believe the blended hourly rate of $240.00 an hour for my time is well within the range that is normal and reasonable for a Union lawyer in this area with such experience, and is very substantially below the rates charged by lawyers with similar levels of skill and experience who work on the management side.
11. In addition to the fees, we seek recovery of $575.00 in costs charged to the Union and Funds, comprising the filing fee of $400.00, the $100.00 fee charged by the process agency, and three charges of $25.00 each as our firm's set expense charge for paralegal time in making electronic filings. The Union and Funds have incurred other expenses of a lesser nature in this case, but I have concluded that it would not be cost effective to determine the amount of those expenses and seek recovery for them.
I have read the foregoing declaration and state that it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.
This matter came before the Court on motion for a default judgment and entry of a final order filed by Administrative District Council 1 of Illinois of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, AFL-CIO ("Union"), the Court has examined the Union's submissions and is fully informed, and it appears that good cause exists for granting the Union's motion and entering this Judgment Order.
Therefore, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. The Union's motion for entry of a default judgment and final order against Piotr Lelo, a/k/a Peter Lelo, Beata Lelo, Monika Urbaniak, Keystone-1 Plastering, Inc., Chicago Renovations Group, Inc., and Chicago Group Renovations, Inc., is granted;
2. Judgment is entered against Piotr Lelo, a/k/a Peter Lelo, Beata Lelo, Monika Urbaniak, Keystone-1 Plastering, Inc., Chicago Renovations Group, Inc., and Chicago Group Renovations, Inc., jointly and severally, in the amount of $175,790.27, along with interest from January 10, 2015, to the date of payment, at the rate of 10% a year, on $171,651.27 of that amount, and interest from the date of this order to the date of payment at the statutory rate on the remaining $4,139.00; and
3. The Court retains jurisdiction of this case to resolve any disputes concerning compliance.
SO ORDERED.
