CHAPTER 89

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT

 

Section

     89-1 Statement of findings and policy

     89-2 Definitions

     89-3 Rights of employees

   89-3.5 Religious exemption from support of employee

          organization

     89-4 Payroll deductions

     89-5 Hawaii labor relations board

   89-5.1 Hearing notice

     89-6 Appropriate bargaining units

     89-7 Elections

     89-8 Recognition and representation; employee

          participation

   89-8.5 Negotiating authority; Hawaii health systems

          corporation

     89-9 Scope of negotiations; consultation

    89-10 Written agreements; enforceability; cost items

  89-10.5 Collective bargaining and local school initiatives

 89-10.55 Charter school collective bargaining; bargaining

          unit; employer; exclusive representative

  89-10.6 Schools; waiver of policies, rules, or procedures

  89-10.8 Resolution of disputes; grievances

    89-11 Resolution of disputes; impasses

    89-12 Strikes, rights and prohibitions

    89-13 Prohibited practices; evidence of bad faith

    89-14 Prevention of prohibited practices

    89-15 Financial reports to employees

    89-16 Public records and proceedings

  89-16.5 Access to personal records by an employee

          organization

  89-16.6 Disclosure to an exclusive representative

    89-17 List of employee organizations and exclusive

          representatives

    89-18 Penalty

    89-19 Chapter takes precedence, when

    89-20 Chapter inoperative, when

    89-23 Classroom cleaning; exception

 

Rules of Court

 

  Applicability of Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure, see HRCP rule 81(b)(12).

 

Case Notes

 

  Chapter 92F not a "conflicting statute on the same subject matter" as this chapter, within the meaning of §89-19, and thus is not preempted by this chapter or any collective bargaining agreement negotiated under it.  83 H. 378, 927 P.2d 386.

  Under this chapter, a public employee pursuing an individual grievance exhausts his or her administrative remedies when the employee completes every step available to the employee in the grievance process and a request to the employee's exclusive bargaining representative to proceed to the last grievance step, which only the representative can undertake, would be futile.  97 H. 528, 40 P.3d 930.

  The Act 355, L 1997 amendment to §78-13, which essentially altered the dates when public employees are to be paid, did not violate article XIII, §2 of the Hawaii constitution nor this chapter inasmuch as they did not prohibit a state employer from changing the pay dates of its employees; thus, the Act 355 amendment was not unconstitutional.  111 H. 168, 140 P.3d 401.

  As §84-13 prohibited the posting of campaign materials on a union bulletin board on the fourth floor of a state building, and nothing in this chapter was explicitly contrary to, or inconsistent with, that construction, there was no conflict between §84-13 and §89-3.  116 H. 73, 170 P.3d 324.

  The Hawaii labor relations board (HLRB) had exclusive original jurisdiction over the statutory issues raised in public employees' union's complaint, and the circuit court erred in addressing the constitutional issues without first giving the HLRB the opportunity to address the issues arising under this chapter.  124 H. 197, 239 P.3d 1.

  Circuit court erred by failing to allow the Hawaii labor relations board to decide the issues relating to this chapter before deciding the constitutional issues in the case where the plain language of §89-14 supported the conclusion that the board had exclusive original jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims and that the case was a "controversy concerning prohibited practices" that must first be submitted to the board.  126 H. 318, 271 P.3d 613.

  Granting the labor relations board exclusive original jurisdiction over plaintiff's action under §89-14 did not violate plaintiff's equal protection right; as plaintiff's fundamental right was not implicated, and plaintiff did not argue that public employees were a suspect class, the board's exclusive original jurisdiction over public sector prohibited practice controversies was rationally related to the public policy of this chapter.  125 H. 317 (App.), 260 P.3d 1135.

  Granting the labor relations board exclusive original jurisdiction over plaintiff's action under §89-14 did not violate plaintiff's substantive due process rights; as plaintiff's fundamental right was not implicated, granting the board exclusive original jurisdiction over public sector prohibited practice controversies was rationally related to the public policy of this chapter - that it would be more effective in promoting harmonious governmental employer-employee relations and assuring the effective operation of government for these controversies to be first decided by the board rather than the courts.  125 H. 317 (App.), 260 P.3d 1135.

  Section 89-14, by vesting the labor relations board with exclusive original jurisdiction over plaintiff's action, did not violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as the administrative dispute resolution process set forth in this chapter did not preclude plaintiff from seeking redress from the courts; plaintiff could appeal an unfavorable decision issued by the board to the circuit court and was thus not deprived of reasonable access to the courts.  125 H. 317 (App.), 260 P.3d 1135.

  Section 89-14 did not violate plaintiff's procedural due process rights where: (1) this chapter afforded plaintiff the opportunity to present plaintiff's action to the labor relations board in an administrative hearing; (2) the decision of the board required a majority vote of its three members, and one member each must be representative of management, labor, and the public; and (3) any person aggrieved by a decision of the board could appeal that decision to the circuit court.  125 H. 317 (App.), 260 P.3d 1135.