Attn:Northeast CJO RowanBrandon - Northeast v. UNEPSE

[Purple State]

I will serve as the union counsel since no other such person exists.

"The Union is acting within its legal right to strike upon reaching an impasse and an injunction would be inappropriate in this case. UNEPSE provided ample time for negotiations and was met with unilateral actions and a cold shoulder. If the Northeast wishes to re-enter negotiations in good-faith then the Union is open to that, but it would be incorrect to use heavy-handed injunctions after showing such little interest in bargaining."

[Purple State]

No UNEPSE contracts are up, and the Northeast is not in a position to renegotiate contracts in a matter of days.  The Assembly doesn't move that quickly, and the Governor has made it clear that existing contracts continue to be in force.   There is absolutely no harm to the unions to work under existing contracts, as required under their terms.

This strike is illegal.

Under what law?

[Purple State]

The Union thanks your honor.

[Purple State]

Fair enough.  Then, we'd like to sue UNEPSE for breach of contract.  We will attempt to prove damages of $30,000,000 per day.

How can this be done without a contract?

I recommend simply negotiating and resolving the issue before us. After that, we can say that all the contracts expire at once and can begin bargaining on that so we have a document in the future.

[Purple State]

Fair enough.  Then, we'd like to sue UNEPSE for breach of contract.  We will attempt to prove damages of $30,000,000 per day.

How can this be done without a contract?

I recommend simply negotiating and resolving the issue before us. After that, we can say that all the contracts expire at once and can begin bargaining on that so we have a document in the future.

There is a contract currently in force.  The new law didn't change that.

Ever hear of trying to gain leverage in negotiations?

Just to be clear, this is my GM hat on now. I'm not acting as an agent of the union.

I understand that a contract exists, but we do not know what is in it. For all we know, there is a clause allowing for such strikes to be conducted.

I think it is a fair middle ground to resolve the differences over this issue quickly. I will then immediately report that the contracts are up in, say, one month. That will allow for the actual "renegotiation" of the contracts so that we can craft an actual document for future reference when such matters come up.

[Purple State]

The following is filed by the Union counsel:

Your Honor,

The question at hand before you is whether to grant damages to the Plaintiff as a result of economic losses caused by a retaliatory strike against perceived anti-union actions by an Employer. It is the Union's contention that it is not only improper, but contrary to the common law of Atlasia to grant such damages.

I: The Strike

The Northeast Government, in this case the Employer, has violated the Constitutional rights of workers, rendering a strike legal. A legal strike should not be subject to penalties and damages.

The Atlasian Constitution, Article VI, Clause 10 states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This right to "organize for the purpose of collective bargaining," simply put, allows for the creation of unions as a means of engaging in good-faith bargaining with employers. Similarly, this right is impinged upon if an Employer practices bad faith bargaining, in which the right of workers to bargain collectively is shunned and disregarded.

Unfortunately, the Northeast Practical Labor Policy Act violates this responsibility of the Employer. By legislating the position of the Northeast in all future contracts, the ability of the Northeast Government to enter into good faith contract negotiations is compromised. Under such conditions, it is well within the right of the Union to strike against the actions of Government.

II: Common Law

The Common Law of Atlasia does not provide for damages as a result of a strike.

The Atlasian Labor Rights Act states in part:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Included in the Taft-Hartley Act are provisions that allow for damages to be rewarded due to economic losses that result from certain types of strikes. Whether the current strike is such a strike is irrelevant, as Taft-Hartley no longer serves as the law of the land in Atlasia.

Further, if Taft-Hartley was law, but is no longer law, it must be assumed that all provisions of the law not expressly enshrined in new laws are no longer in effect. Thus, the provision of damages as a result of certain strikes was removed from the legal arsenal in Atlasia, just as all other parts of the Act were removed.

III: Conclusion

The strike is legal. The strike opposes a law we contend is unconstitutional. The law providing for damages was repealed. There is no legal basis for the Plaintiff's arguments in this case. As such, the Union asks that the Government's claim of $30,000,000 per day in damages be denied.

In addition, the Union would like to file a counter-suit against Governor FallenMorgan, to declare the Practical Labor Policy Act unconstitutional and to compel the Northeast Government to bargain with the Union in good faith.

Thank you.

[Purple State]

This case should be very very exciting.  Attempting to get some common law contracts stuff recognized, I can't wait to see where it goes.

I concur.

I'd also like to say I am pleased the cause of this suit came from news from the GM rather than someone just making up a fact pattern.  I hope the GM continues to publish stories which would allow litigation to occur.

I'm pleased by this as well. Though it puts me in a tough position of serving as the actor from my news stories.

I hope that nothing portrayed in my stories or the eventual outcome of those stories genuinely upsets anyone. I try to make the game more exciting, mix things up so that it doesn't become rote and repetitive

[Purple State]

The Union will be appealing this ruling to the Supreme Court sometime tomorrow night.

[Purple State]

The Union will be appealing this ruling to the Supreme Court sometime tomorrow night.

The union should just get back to work to mitigate damages.

They will be while the SC hears the case. Beginning Monday. I'll put up a story on it tonight or tomorrow.