An element of ideology: the moral limits of private property

I've read of a few cases recently where a company faced with unionization of its workers threatens to simply close its doors if the unionization proceeds. (I'm sure this is not a new phenomenon in labour relations).

Usually, the company claims that it will lose money if it must pay the benefits/wages/etc that unionization would entail. Now, this may be so (although this claim is seldom not believed when it is made), or it may not.

• If a company really will lose money under the new scheme, is it moral for them to close?
• If the company will NOT lose money under the new scheme (but will now make less money than they could in some new location with new, non-unionized workers), is it moral for them to close?
• What moral obligations does a company have to its workers?