§78-13  Salary periods.  (a)  Unless otherwise provided by law, all officers and employees shall be paid at least semimonthly except that substitute teachers, part-time hourly rated teachers of adult and evening classes, and other part-time, intermittent, or casual employees may be paid once a month and that the governor, upon reasonable notice and upon determination that the payroll payment basis should be converted from predicted payroll to after-the-fact payroll, may allow a one-time once a month payroll payment to all public officers and employees to effect a conversion to after-the-fact payroll as follows:

     (1)  The implementation of the after-the-fact payroll will commence with the June 30, 1998, pay day, which will be delayed to July 1, 1998;

     (2)  The July 15, 1998, pay day will be delayed to July 17, 1998;

     (3)  The July 31, 1998, pay day will be delayed to August 3, 1998;

     (4)  The August 14, 1998, pay day will be delayed to August 19, 1998;

     (5)  The August 31, 1998, pay day will be delayed to September 4, 1998;

     (6)  The September 15, 1998, pay day will be delayed to September 18, 1998; and

     (7)  Thereafter, pay days will be on the fifth and the twentieth of every month.  If the fifth and the twentieth fall on a state holiday, Saturday, or Sunday, the pay day will be the immediately preceding weekday.

The implementation of the after-the-fact payroll shall not be subject to negotiation under chapter 89.

     (b)  If an employee has been working for the State for at least six months, has no paid leave accumulated, and has an existing salary overpayment balance:

     (1)  The employee may be paid the employee's salary on the same pay dates and for the same pay periods as non-salaried employees.

     (2)  Upon accumulation of eighty hours of paid leave, the employee shall be paid the employee's salary on the same pay dates and for the same pay periods as salaried employees.

     (c)  If an employee has been working for the State for at least six months and has had at least two incidents of leave which results in salary overpayment within the past six months:

     (1)  The employee may be paid the employee's salary on the same pay dates and for the same pay period as non-salaried employees.

     (2)  If there are no incidents of leave which result in salary overpayment for a subsequent four-month period, the employee shall be paid the employee's salary on the same pay dates and for the same pay periods as salaried employees.

     (d)  The implementation of subsections (b) and (c) shall not be subject to negotiation under chapter 89.

     (e)  All employees, except those belonging to bargaining units 5 and 7, hired on or after July 1, 1998, shall be paid on the same pay dates and for the same pay periods as non-salaried employees. [L 1961, c 130, §1; am L 1963, c 60, §1; Supp, §5-14.5; HRS §78-13; am L 1974, c 129, §1; am L 1996, c 80, §1; am L 1997, c 355, §1; am L 1998, c 109, §1 and c 110, §3]

 

Revision Note

 

  Subsection (e) redesignated pursuant to §23G-15(1).

 

Attorney General Opinions

 

  Payments on biweekly rather than on semimonthly basis held valid.  Att. Gen. Op. 64-11.

 

Case Notes

 

  District court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, where court granted a preliminary injunction against operation of Act 355, L 1997 (which amended this section), State's "pay lag" law, on the ground that it impaired the obligations of the employees' collective bargaining agreement in violation of the contract clause of the U.S. Constitution.  183 F.3d 1096.

  Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction granted, where plaintiffs filed motion seeking to enjoin defendants from delaying payroll under Act 355, L 1997 (which amended this section), with respect to University of Hawaii faculty members, arguing that Act 355 violated the contract clause of the U.S. Constitution because a five-day delay in pay violated the collective bargaining agreement between the State and the faculty members at the University.  16 F. Supp. 2d 1242.

  Where there was no existing contract that Act 355, L 1997 (amending this section), impaired, no contracts clause violation possible and injunction no longer needed; the case was moot.  125 F. Supp. 2d 1237.