The contract job was in Philadelphia. Their home base was Lancaster. Would that not be a "different area"? Certainly, a different local (if there even is one in Lancaster).
I guess we need to know whether that $2.9 million was due the Philly contract workers (which I wouldn't understand) or their Lancaster non-union employees (which I wouldn't understand, either).
If the latter, I wonder how they feel about losing their jobs over the dispute...
From the story, "Later, Banta had another union-scale job with a contract containing a "traveling contractors" clause. That meant the contract's requirements would apply to future jobs in other areas."
Sounds to me like Banta signed a couple of stupid contracts, to which the union held them. The union was no help to the Banta employees, of course ... but the judge had to rule on the contracts, not the effects on Banta's employees -- not to mention the union laborers who will no longer get work from Banta.
The leadership of this union is clearly more interested in maintaining their piece of the pie, than they are in keeping their folks employed.... the union members should (but most likely won't) figure out that the union isn't actually helping them with lawsuits like this one.