Plaintiff New York City and Vicinity District Council of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and J oiners of America (the District Council or the Union), by and through its attorneys Spivak Lipton LLP, for its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Defendant Association of Wall-Ceiling & Carpentry Industries of New York, Inc. (WCC) Counterclaims respectfully alleges as follows:
ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS 1
1. Admits the allegations set forth in paragraph 46. 2. Admits the allegations set forth in paragraph 47. 3. Denies the allegation that WCC negotiates collective bargaining agreements on behalf of its members with the District Council, avers that WCC and the District Council have
1 The paragraph references are to the originally numbered paragraphs in WCCs Answer with Counterclaim [sic] filed August 26, 3014 (Docket Document 8). Case 1:14-cv-06091-RMB Document 17 Filed 09/12/14 Page 1 of 5 -2- been and are now parties to an individual multiemployer collective bargaining agreement, and otherwise admits the other allegations set forth in paragraph 48. 4. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to sufficient to form a belief as tot the allegations set forth in paragraph 49. 5. Admits the allegations set forth in paragraph 50. 6. Admits the allegations set forth in paragraph 51. 7. Responds to the allegations set forth in paragraph 52 by respectfully referring the Court to the International Agreements for their content. 8. Denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 53 and avers that prior District Council officers and officials under the sway of the Genovese Organized Crime Family and other corrupt and criminal elements permitted WCC members to employ International Agreements within the geographical jurisdiction of the District Council. 9. Denies knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 54. 10. Denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 55 that WCC and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and J oiners of America (the UBC) entered into an International Agreement in J uly 2013, avers that the WCC and the UBC entered into an International Agreement in August 2013, and otherwise respectfully refers the Court to that document for its content. 11. Admits the allegations set forth in paragraph 56. 12. Denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 57. 13. Admits the allegations set forth in paragraph 58. 14. Admits the allegations set forth in paragraph 59. Case 1:14-cv-06091-RMB Document 17 Filed 09/12/14 Page 2 of 5 -3- 15. Admits the allegations set forth in paragraph 60. 16. Responds to the allegations set forth in paragraph 61 by respectfully referring the Court to the Arbitrators J uly 22, 2014 Opinion and Award for its content. 17. Responds to the allegations set forth in paragraph 62 by respectfully referring the Court to the current CBA for its content. 18. Admits the allegations set forth in paragraph 63. 19. Admits that the Award has not been vacated or stayed, avers that the Award has not been enforced by an order of any court of competent jurisdiction, and otherwise denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 64. 20. Neither admits nor denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 65 because they set forth legal conclusions. 21. In response to paragraph 66, Plaintiff repeats, realleges, and reiterates each response in paragraphs 1 to 20 of this Answer as if fully set forth here. 22. Denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 67. 23. Denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 68 except to aver that the District Council continues to refuse to recognize International Agreements when invoked by WCC members within the geographical jurisdiction of the District Council. 24. Denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 69. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FOR A FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25. The Counterclaims fail to state claims upon which relief can be granted. FOR A SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26. WCC waived its Counterclaims when it entered into the current CBA with the District Council. Case 1:14-cv-06091-RMB Document 17 Filed 09/12/14 Page 3 of 5 -4-
FOR A THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 27. WCC is estopped from asserting the Counterclaims based upon its having entered into the current CBA with the District Council. FOR A FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 28. The Counterclaims are barred because of WCCs unclean hands. FOR A FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 29. The Counterclaims are barred because the J uly 22, 2014 Opinion and Award of Arbitrator Howard Edelman failed to draw its essence from the current CBA between WCC and the District Council. FOR A SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 30. The Counterclaims are barred by the Courts May 8, 2013 Decision and Order in United States v. District Council of New York City and Vicinity of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and J oiners of America, et al., 90 Civ. 5722 (RMB), approving the current CBA between WCC and the District Council
Case 1:14-cv-06091-RMB Document 17 Filed 09/12/14 Page 4 of 5 -5-
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff District Council respectfully requests that this Court issue a decision and order: (1) Dismissing the Counterclaims; (2) Awarding costs, expenses, and attorneys fees to Plaintiff; and (3) Providing such other additional relief as is just and proper.
Dated: New York, New York September 12, 2014
Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ J ames M. Murphy
J ames M. Murphy Gillian Costello Spivak Lipton LLP 1700 Broadway New York, NY 10019 212-765-2100 jmurphy@spivaklipton.com
Attorneys for District Council of New York City and Vicinity of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America Case 1:14-cv-06091-RMB Document 17 Filed 09/12/14 Page 5 of 5
10-11-13 Case 90-Cv-5722 Attachment: # 1 CBA 7-1-11 To 6-30-15 Document 1416 LETTER Addressed To Judge Richard M. Berman From James M. Murphy Dated 10-11-2013 Re: (... ) Cement League 1416-1
10-11-13 Case 90-Cv-5722 Attachment: # 2 Addendum For Market Recovery Document 1416-2 LETTER Addressed To Judge Richard M. Berman From James M. Murphy Re: Cement League