Attn:Northeast CJO RowanBrandon - Northeast v. UNEPSE

[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law, but is no longer law, it must be assumed that all provisions of the law not expressly enshrined in new laws are no longer in effect.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 The law providing for damages was repealed.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

[cinyc]

The Northeast's case is very simple.  The Northeast has an existing contract with UNEPSE to provide services for the Northeast.  Going on strike while that contract is still in force over changes that MIGHT occur when renegotiating the next contract is a clear breach of that contract.  The Northeast is living up to its bargain and has NOT repudiated the current UNEPSE contracts.  If the Practical Labor Act wasn't clear enough that the Northeast didn't repudiate current contracts, the governor has made this perfectly clear in Executive Order MB-1:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That the unions have a right to collectively bargain is not in dispute.  What the unions do NOT have the right to do is strike in the middle of a contract for no reason other than the Northeast has made public the terms it wishes to include in future contracts.  The time to strike on those matters is when there is when the current contract expires and negotiations reach an impasse.

The Northeast government has an absolute right to set a framework for future negotiations.  Doing so does not limit UNEPSE's right to collectively bargain, even if provisions of the Practical Labor Policy Act weren't waiveable.  But almost every provision of the Practical Labor Policy Act IS waiveable if the Assembly and Governor agree, rendering UNEPSE's claims that their rights to collectively bargain have been harmed largely moot.  

Nothing has changed with the current contract situation.  UNEPSE should live up to its bargain.  Since they are not doing so, they should be liable for damages.  The GM has stated that the Northeast is losing $20-$30 million per day due to the strike.  Since the other party to the contract, UNEPSE is in clear breach, it should reimburse the Northeast for its costs.

Counsel for UNEPSE is attempting to throw sand in the court's eyes by citing the Atlasian Labor Rights Act for the proposition that the Northeast cannot collect damages.  That the bill repealed the Taft-Hartley Act is irrelevant for determining whether a lawsuit can be brought under common law for breach of contract.  There is no bar on an employer or union bringing a common law breach of contract suit under the Atlasian Labor Rights Act, or far as I know, any other provision of Atlasian or Northeast law.  To remove that right just because the Atlasian Labor Rights Act repealed Taft-Hartley simply doesn't make sense.  And it affects unions and employers equally - which is why UNEPSE should be very careful about creating a precedent that ultimately could harm other unions.

Thank you.

[Хahar 🤔]

I must admit, that no offense to anyone, but Rowan has EASILY been the most active CJO we've had in years.

MAS will be very sad now.

[Rowan]

Thank you counsel.

I will now begin my deliberation.

[Rowan]

Due to the complex nature of the case, I hope everyone understands the time this is taking for me to come to a verdict.

[Rowan]

Opinion: Northeast vs. UNEPSE

Verdict:
This case is in regards to damages the Northeast feels it has incurred due to a strike by the UNEPSE. The Northeast believes that the union shall pay these damages. The court agrees with this point of view. That is why we find in favor of the plaintiff, the Northeast.

Reasoning:
A contract is an official agreement between two or more parties. If one party fails to live up to their side of the contract(in this case the union has failed to provide its services to the Northeast as a result of the strike), that party has destroyed the spirit of a contract. This is why we are inclined to agree with the Northeast in this instance. If we were to rule in favor of the UNEPSE, we feel like we would be setting a dangerous precedent that would put into jeopardy the validity of all other contracts either presently or in the future. The court believes that a contract is an important institution to the well-being of a society and that they must be upheld in order for a society to function.

What is at issue is not whether or not the Northeast has infringed upon the rights of the UNEPSE to collectively bargaining by setting the terms it would like included in future contracts. What we are discussing now is in regards to the current contracts. It is perfectly clear that by going on strike in the middle of the contract, the union has thereby broken that contract, and shall be held liable for any damages that come about as a result of them going on strike. The current contract has not expired and therefore the union has no case in this matter.

If a contract had expired and the UNEPSE had gone on strike, then they would not have been liable for any losses the Northeast had incurred. But since they are still under contract, and have broken that contract by not providing their services to the Northeast, the Court has no choice but to rule in favor of the Northeast.

According to the GM:

Northeast
With negotiations seemingly at a standstill, the UNEPSE has announced its intention to commence a region-wide strike beginning Thursday at 8:00am. Experts believe such a strike would cost the region between $20-$30 million each day in activity.

We have clear evidence here that as a result of the strike, the Northeast is losing approximately $20-30 million each day. These are real damages caused by the UNEPSE's decision to go on strike. If they had not gone on strike, the Northeast would not be losing this amount of money each and every day since the strike began. The court believes that the UNEPSE shall be held liable for these expenses as they are the fault of the UNEPSE, and the UNEPSE only.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Court believes that the UNEPSE is in complete breach of contract with the Northeast. They had signed a contract to provide services to the Northeast, but that contract has been broken by their decision to go on strike. The Court believes that since the union is still under a present contract, they are bound by that contract, regardless of whether the Northeast sets terms they wish to include in future contracts. In sum, the Court rules in favor of the Plaintiff, the Northeast, and the Defendant, 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.

So Ordered
x RowanBrandon

[Purple State]

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

[Antonio the Sixth]

*facepalm*

[cinyc]

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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

A pretty dubious ruling (though not really surprising). It'll be interesting to see what the Court makes of this; there are several things here they've never ruled on before.

[Badger]

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.

True, but appeal in the meantime.

[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.