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.
“...Banta signed a couple of stupid contracts, to which the union held them...”
It is important to have some legal contract expertise OR have a lawyer review all contracts before signing.
Two questions:
1. Gotcha. But why is a contract with a "travelling clause" even legal? It evidently creates a union shop where none existed -- without benefit of a vote. Can an employer sign away the rights of his employees?
2. On whose behalf did Banta actually owe the $2.9 million in bennies? I can't imagine it's the contract labor from the nineties in Philly -- it has to be the company's regular staff. Doesn't it? Which brings us back to #1...