UNEPSE v. Northeast Region

[Purple State]

The Union of Northeast Public Service Employees is appealing the ruling of Northeast CJO RowanBrandon in the case Northeast v. UNEPSE (ruling here) as a violation of the Atlasian Constitution Article VI, Section 10, "Persons in employment shall have the right to organize for the purpose of collective bargaining, with such exceptions as the Senate may provide for by Law on the grounds of vital national interest."

Since UNEPSE is a fictional entity within the game of Atlasia, I will be serving as the union's "voice."

[Purple State]

May it please the Court,

Statement of Facts:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By a vote of 6-1, the bill PASSES.

March 18, 2010 (6:01pm EST): Northeast Lt. Governor Libertas declares the Practical Labor Policy Act passed.

The Practical Labor Policy Act is hereby signed into law.

March 19, 2010 (2:58pm EST): Northeast Governor FallenMorgan signs the PLPA into law.

March 21, 2010 (1:53am): Richard Stern, President of UNEPSE, approaches Governor FallenMorgan for the purposes of negotiating over the PLPA to avoid a strike.

March 25, 2010 (8:00am EST): The Union of Northeast Public Service Employees officially goes on strike after the Government of the Northeast fails to engage in negotiations.

Thank you.

The request for an injunction has been DENIED.

So ordered
x RowanBrandon

March 25, 2010 (5:03pm EST): Northeast Chief Judicial Officer RowanBrandon denies the Northeast Government's request for an injunction against the UNEPSE strike.

April 2, 2010 (11:57am EST): Northeast Chief Judicial Officer RowanBrandon rules in Northeast v. UNEPSE that the UNEPSE "shall pay a sum of $20 million for each day they are on strike going back to the first day that they left their jobs and striked."

April 3, 2010 (11:07pm): The UNEPSE declares an end to the strike pending the resolution of the case by the Supreme Court.

The strike is estimated by the Office of the GM to have cost the Northeast $120 million in lost revenues and productivity.

Question(s) Presented:

The question at the center of the case is whether the Union has the right to strike in response to a constitutional violation by the Employer of the Union's Article VI right to bargain collectively.

Argument:

Before delving into the direct question posed, I first assert that the Practical Labor Policy Act, herein PLPA, is in fact a violation of the Atlasian Constitution.

Article VI, Section 10 of the Atlasian Constitution states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article VI is rightly regarded as the "Bill of Rights" of Atlasia, outlining the rights provided to all Atlasians at any level of government under the "due process clause" of Article VI, Section 2. As a result, both federal and regional governments are bound to uphold these rights of the people.

Article VI, Section 10 provides that all employed individuals have the right to organize in order to bargain collectively, except where the Senate provides otherwise. The ability to regulate the right to bargain collectively is limited exclusively to the federal government. For the Government of the Northeast to pass and implement the PLPA is a clear violation of the constitutional right of workers to strike.

This stance is further defined by the Twenty-Second Amendment to the Atlasian Constitution, which states in part:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is again the Senate, and only the Senate, that may create regulations regarding employment protections, such as matters involving unionization, for the protection of commerce.

Having established that the Government of the Northeast has violated the rights of the workers, what may workers do?

The Government argues that a mid-contract strike is illegal; however, they have no basis for this claim. There is no contract available to corroborate this claim, nor did the Government ever pretend to have such evidence.

Rather, we must focus solely on what we have available: the Atlasian Constitution. What does it mean to "organize for the purposes of collective bargaining" under Article VI, Section 10? I contend that these words include the right to strike for the purposes of inducing bargaining, whether over contract renewal or grievances. The UNEPSE strike against the PLPA was the organization of workers for the express purpose of bargaining collectively with the Government of the Northeast over the grievance caused by the passage of the PLPA, as seen by UNEPSE President Richard Stern's deferral of the strike to allow for negotiations to continue.

Conclusion:

An Employer has committed an illegal act for which the Union has submitted a grievance. The Employer fails to respond to the grievance, precipitating a strike.

That is what has happened in the Northeast region. The Government of the Northeast passed an unconstitutional law that the UNEPSE contested. After approaching to negotiate a resolution with the Government over this illegal action, the UNEPSE felt that its advances were not being met in good faith, resulting in a strike.

Now the Government of the Northeast is asking that their illegal actions be paid for by the Union. It is clear that this should not be the case and that the Supreme Court should overturn the ruling of Northeast Chief Judicial Officer RowanBrandon in Northeast v. UNEPSE.

I thank the Court and the Plaintiff rests pending questions by the justices. Please note that I will have limited internet access until late on Sunday, April 11. I will do my best to answer any and all questions in a timely manner.

[Purple State]

1) What exactly is the content of the present public employee contracts between UNEPSE and the Northeast?  When exactly is the Northeast in breach of the contract?  Or UNEPSE?

Based on the timeline of events, the Northeast passed this legislation but no review or renegotiation of labor contracts nor the entering into of any new contracts had occurred prior to the strike.  In other words, the strike occurred because of the threat of changes to contracts, not because of any actual/proposed changes.

In contract terms, the most favorable interpretation for you that I can come up with on this front is an "anticipatory breach", but nevertheless, any type of review of the both the UNESPE and NE's actions require these facts for me to determine whether any breach of contract should be addressed by this Court separate of the question of fines imposed and the Constitutional question of the new legislation.

Moreover, if you propose that there is no contract, then, in theory, aren't all of UNESPE's employees simply at-will employees who can be fired at any time by the NE under the common law? (see F.L. 4-3)  I don't believe the "right to organize for purposes of collective bargaining" includes the right to a job.

You need to think through this because any decision we make on a "right to strike" will have residual consequences if there is no written contract that details when workers can be fired.

So there is no available contract and I feel it would be improper to retroactively "create" the words of a contract in my capacity as GM. As a result, I cannot say that there is no contract, but there is no available contract.

In that case, you may wish to consider the workers under the "employment at-will" category. So the region would be able to fire its employees for whatever reason (aside from protected classes), but it would also give workers the right to strike for whatever reason without penalty and there could be no breach of contract. If the Northeast wishes to do so, it could fire all 6 million members of the UNEPSE, though that would likely yield economic disaster.

Further, I contend that the PLPA was an unfair labor practice insofar that it limited the Government's ability to bargain in good faith with the Union in the future.

I cannot recommend how to proceed on this front. The Court could compel me as GM to proffer a contract, but I'm not sure how I would go about doing so in an unbiased way given the circumstances.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Regarding whether the Regions may fill in the gaps of labor laws in Atlasia, I argue that the Constitution explicitly relegates this power to limit that right exclusively to the Senate, stating, "with such exceptions as the Senate may provide for by Law on the grounds of vital national interest." While the Regions may provide for enhanced structure in labor relations, they cannot limit that ability.

As for "right to organize" versus "right to bargain collectively," I misspoke in using that term. My main point is not that the Union has a right to bargain collectively, but it does have the right to organize for such purposes. I argue that this does not mean only the right to form unions, but also the right to organize in a strike in order to push for collective bargaining. I ask that the Court view all previous mentions of the "right to bargain collectively" in my brief as following in this vein.

[Purple State]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Regarding whether the Regions may fill in the gaps of labor laws in Atlasia, I argue that the Constitution explicitly relegates this power to limit that right exclusively to the Senate, stating, "with such exceptions as the Senate may provide for by Law on the grounds of vital national interest." While the Regions may provide for enhanced structure in labor relations, they cannot limit that ability.

As for "right to organize" versus "right to bargain collectively," I misspoke in using that term. My main point is not that the Union has a right to bargain collectively, but it does have the right to organize for such purposes. I argue that this does not mean only the right to form unions, but also the right to organize in a strike in order to push for collective bargaining. I ask that the Court view all previous mentions of the "right to bargain collectively" in my brief as following in this vein.

I should note that the bolded portion was recently stated by the unanimous decision of the Court in JBrase v. Atlasia, in which the author, A.J. Marokai Blue stated:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While a region may not "subvert" federal law per the Supremacy Clause, it is also unconstitutional for a region to act on a matter over which the Senate has "exclusive authority" by the Constitution.

[Purple State]

I believe what the Justice means is that Section 5 creates an environment for a "free rider" dilemma to emerge, in which there is no incentive to join a union if one benefits equally from the union's activities without paying the costs of dues. However, this inevitably undermines the relative bargaining power of the union, thus reducing the benefits gained from unionization. Lower benefits produce fewer and fewer that wish to pay the costs, further undermining the ability of the union to bargain effectively.

If I am reading Section 5 correctly, you are specifically enshrining a vicious cycle which will inevitably infringe upon the right of workers to organize for the purposes of collective bargaining, albeit indirectly.

[Purple State]

I thank the court for their time.

[Purple State]

I thank the court for their extended opinion.

I find it amazing the way the dynamics in this game can differ so dramatically from real life because someone managed to include one extra line in a constitution.

[Purple State]

Also, I do believe I sought a counter-suit in the original case before Rowan asking that the law be ruled unconstitutional.

[Purple State]

It's funny, only after the fact did I remember that there exists a Workers' Bill of Rights in Atlasia statute, which I assume extends to the regions. That includes, "The right of workers to organize and act in concert shall not be impeded by the government of Atlasia or any institution under the jurisdiction of Atlasian Law."