Labour Law Assignment

Question. Whether the strike shown in the documentary was legal or not?

Answer. After watching the documentary and analyzing it thoroughly, I can say that the strike was
legal as the lobours and their Union made it in the knowledge of the company about the strike which
they were going to do in March of 2021. As the action taken by the company was not morally or
legally correct as the company started to charge a premium over the workers healthcare fund and
laying off several jobs in the area. Nearly 1750 jobs were layed off by the company since 2015. The
company (Allegheny Technologies Incorporated) didn’t took any consult with the local labours Union
(United Steelworkers). ATI was severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, with the company
reporting over $1 billion in losses for that year. In February of that year, the company’s labour
contract with the USW (which represents roughly 1300 employees in 9 facilities) expired, but citing
the pandemic and a general lack of progress in negotiations for a new contract, the union agreed to
extend the expired contract until February 2021. By January of that year, negotiations had resumed,
but like before, neither side could come to an agreement, with the main issue concerning the
company's health care plan. The company was pushing for workers to pay a monthly premium, while
the union was steadfast in objecting to premiums, arguing that adding premiums would negate the
pay increase offered in the new contract. Additional issues included concerns over outsourcing and
opposition to changes to the company's scheduling and overtime system. On March 5, several days
after the extended contract had expired, workers voted to authorize strike action, and on the
morning of March 30, they performed a walkout and began picketing

Over the next few months, the company and union held on-again off-again negotiations, during
which time the main point of contention continued to be the health care plan. In late May, federal
mediators became involved, by which point the two sides had settled almost all other issues. On July
6, following several days of intense negotiations, the union announced a tentative agreement with
the company that included a guarantee of no premiums in the workers' health care plan. Workers
voted to accept the agreement on July 13 and returned to work by July 19. The new contract has
generally been seen as a win for the union, as it addresses all of the issues they had had with the
company's original proposals. At the same time, the union estimates that the strike cost the company
millions of dollars, with the company posting a $49.2 million loss for the second quarter of 2021.

Now as the whole matter went to court. The court gave the judgement that ATI should form a new
labour contract with the Union that addresses their original concerns.

A similar case with respect to United Steelworkers V. ATI is of Prosecutor v. Kunarac

Factual Background. In Kunarac, defendants were charged with enslavement for acts that included
keeping two girls in a house for several months and treating them as personal property. The girls
were required to do all household chores and comply with all sexual demands. This was the first time
a charge of enslavement had been brought before the ICTY.

Legal Analysis. The Trial Chamber was required to determine what was meant by enslavement as a
crime against humanity under Article 5(c). After reviewing the applicable law, including the Slavery
Conventions, the Forced Labour Convention, the Nuremberg Charter and case law, decisions of the
European Court of Human Rights, including Van der Mussele, and the work of the UN International
Law Commission, the Trial Chamber held that enslavement, as a crime in customary international
law, “consisted of the exercise of any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a
person”. The Trial Chamber was aware that this definition might be “broader than the traditional and
sometimes apparently distinct definitions of either slavery, the slave trade and servitude or forced or
compulsory labour found in other areas of international law”. The court was, however, guided by the
International Law Commission’s Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind,
and in particular its commentary on the draft provision concerning enslavement, which it defined as
“establishing or maintaining over persons a status of slavery, servitude or forced labour”. The ILC
itself did not define these terms but referred instead to the existing conventions – specifically the
Slavery Convention, the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the ICCPR, and ILO
Conventions Nos. 29 and 105.