The Supreme Court Is Considering a Case on How a Bankrupt Trump Casino Screwed Workers
At its weekly conference today, the US Supreme Court will consider whether to hear a case that
involves the latest installment in the story of Donald Trump's failed
Atlantic City casino empire and the efforts of hotel workers to recover
some of their health and pension benefits from Trump's Taj Mahal.
In 2014, Trump's former company Trump Entertainment Resorts, which
ran the Trump Taj Mahal in Atlantic City, filed for bankruptcy for the
third time in its 25-year history. As part of the bankruptcy
proceedings, billionaire Carl Icahn, who held much of the company's
debt, agreed to bail out the hotel and keep it open, but only if the
bankruptcy court would agree to let him obliterate union-negotiated
health and pension benefits. The hotel workers union, Unite Here Local
54, had a collective bargaining agreement with the hotel management that
covered more than 1,000 non-gaming workers. But the contract expired a
few days after the company filed for bankruptcy. Under federal law, the
provisions of that contract should have remained in effect until a new
agreement could be negotiated.
But Icahn told the court that if it didn't invalidate the contract
and strip the workers of their health and pension benefits, he would
shutter the place. The court agreed; the hotel stayed open, but more
than 1,000 workers lost their health insurance, paid lunch breaks, and
more than $3 million in pension contributions as a result.
Unite Here Local 54, is asking the Supreme Court to overturn the bankruptcy court's decision, which was upheld by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in
January this year. They argue that the bankruptcy judge overstepped his
authority in invalidating the collective bargaining agreement, an
argument that the National Labor Relations Board supported in the
appellate court.
In February, the Taj Mahal under Icahn's ownership emerged from
Chapter 11, ending the last vestiges of its relationship with the
no-longer-presumptive GOP presidential nominee who founded it in 1990.
Trump has not had anything to do with the hotel since 2009, other than
enjoying the benefits from his 10 percent stake in the entertainment
company in exchange for the use of his name on the hotel. Even that stake was eliminated in February when the company emerged from bankruptcy.
It's unclear what the Supreme Court might do with this case. The
circumstances of the union's position are unusual, and not likely to
affect many other labor contracts. There's no circuit split or other
legal conflict that might push it to take the case, and without Justice
Antonin Scalia, the court hasn't granted many new petitions for the next
term. But if it were to take up the case and side with the union, Icahn
might make good on his threat and simply shut the hotel down, leaving
the union in a bit of a classic catch-22.
Trump, who still has his name on the hotel despite having no role in
the company, won't be affected either way. But the case does reveal
something about a possible Trump administration: He recently said that
if he's elected president he'd make Icahn his treasury secretary.
Post a Comment