HRS 0089-0013 ANNOTATIONS

Unilateral wage increases by employer pending representation elections as constituting interference, restraint or coercion. Att. Gen. Op. 74-6.

Only interference with a lawful employee activity may be subject of a prohibited practice charge under subsection (a)(1). 60 H. 361, 590 P.2d 993.

To prove a prohibited practice under subsection (b), a conscious, knowing, and deliberate intent to violate the provisions of chapter 89 must be proven. 66 H. 401, 664 P.2d 727.

The broad policy statements within §89-1 do not impose binding duties or obligations upon any parties but, rather, provide a useful guide for determining legislative intent and purpose; these statements, therefore, do not implicate the prohibited practice provision of refusing or failing to comply with any provision of chapter 89, as set forth in subsection (a)(7); thus, employee's claim that employer violated §89-1 properly dismissed. 97 H. 528, 40 P.3d 930.

Where employee presented grievance to employer, was heard with respect thereto, and was notified that the remedy employee sought as an individual was denied, employer did not violate §89-8(b) and the board was correct in determining that, on the relevant undisputed facts, the employer was entitled to summary judgment; thus, there was no subsection (a)(7) or (8) prohibited practice violation of the collective bargaining agreement. 97 H. 528, 40 P.3d 930.

Where employee was not the exclusive representative of an appropriate bargaining unit and, thus, §89-11(a) did not confer any right to submit employee's dispute to an agreed procedure or to the board for a final and binding decision, the board was correct in dismissing employee's claim, and there was no subsection (a)(7) prohibited practice refusal or failure to comply with chapter 89 by the employer. 97 H. 528, 40 P.3d 930.

Violation of bargaining agreement. 78-2 HLR 1219.