[Wingy]

You're right. The judge was constrained by the law, and the clauses that were agreed to in the two contracts cited were not to be ignored. The union could have negotiated a better outcome but the judge had no choice but to follow the law. Or would you rather that judges make their own law as they 'feel' .

The best solution was to not sign those contracts in the first place, but that's 20-20 hindsight.

[okie01]

The judge was constrained by the law, and the clauses that were agreed to in the two contracts cited were not to be ignored.

Okay. I'm confused. The tile company does a couple of contract jobs at a remote location that required them to hire union labor for those jobs.

They completed the jobs, paying the appropriate wages, dues and bennies.

Once those jobs were completed, how are they obligated to continue paying into the union's pension fund -- when they evidently have no union employees on their permanent staff?