STAND. COM. REP. NO. 1597

                                   Honolulu, Hawaii
                                                     , 1999

                                   RE:  H.B. No. 159
                                        H.D. 2
                                        S.D. 2




Honorable Norman Mizuguchi
President of the Senate
Twentieth State Legislature
Regular Session of 1999
State of Hawaii

Sir:

     Your Committee on Judiciary, to which was referred H.B. No.
159, H.D. 2, S.D. 1, entitled: 

     "A BILL FOR AN ACT RELATING TO WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION,"

begs leave to report as follows:

     The purpose of this bill, as received by your Committee, is
to amend the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) to include
"improper quality of patient care" as a reportable violation,
among other expanded violations, and to strengthen the civil
remedies for a violation of the Act.

     Your Committee finds that persons who draw attention to
violations of the law or of public safety on the part of their
employers are often punished by discrimination ranging from the
subtle to the very direct.  While many people will be discouraged
by the threat of retaliation from coming forward, some will still
come forward to report violations, and may bring suit under the
Act.  Your Committee believes the increased penalties provided in
this bill, and the extension of time within which to file, will
encourage those few whistleblowers who do come forward to make a
claim under the Act.  Your Committee further notes that this
measure clarifies that the common law remedies for discharges in
violation of public policy are not precluded either by the Act
nor by the exclusivity provision of the worker's compensation
laws.


 
a                                                     
 
                                   STAND. COM. REP. NO. 1597
                                   Page 2


     Your Committee is concerned that this measure as written
would include a standard of conduct specific to one profession as
a basis for violation of the Act by an employer in any business.
Although your Committee is sympathetic to the pressures placed on
nurses and other health care professionals faced with conflicting
demands from managed care requirements and their own professional
codes of ethics, your Committee believes it would cause
unnecessary confusion to insert into a general employment statute
a standard applicable to only a fraction of employers.  Your
Committee is of the opinion that extending the coverage of the
Act to include conduct by any employer that creates danger to
public health, safety, and welfare, will include health care
practices that create a threat to patients within the coverage of
the Act.

     Your Committee is further concerned that many of the
proposed amendments in this measure would not substantively
change the Act, but instead would simply provide a more ambiguous
description of what conduct is proscribed for employers.
Modifying the current requirements of the Act in this manner
could cause confusion and unnecessary litigation as to whether
case law interpreting phrases in the current Act still applied to
the modified Act.

     Testimony in support of this measure was submitted by the
American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii, the Hawaii Nurses'
Association, Common Cause Hawaii, ILWU Local 142, the Hawaii
Chapter of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association, the
Hawaii State AFL-CIO, and three individuals.  Testimony in
opposition to this measure was submitted by the Chamber of
Commerce of Hawaii and the Healthcare Association of Hawaii.

     Upon further consideration, your Committee has amended this
measure by deleting its contents and substituting the contents of
S.B. 235, S.D. 2, which, with an additional amendment:

     (1)  Expands the categories of information being reported
          about an employer that forms the basis of a
          whistleblower claim, to include a violation of a
          regulation or ordinance, or danger to public health,
          safety, and welfare;

     (2)  Expands the limitation period for filing a claim from
          ninety days to two years;

     (3)  Expands the civil remedies available under the Act;

     (4)  Increases the fine for a violation of the Act from up
          to $500 to no greater than $10,000; and

 
a                                                     
                                   STAND. COM. REP. NO. 1597
                                   Page 3


     (5)  Clarifies that the worker's compensation exclusivity
          provision does not preclude common law remedies for
          discharge contrary to public policy.

     As affirmed by the record of votes of the members of your
Committee on Judiciary that is attached to this report, your
Committee is in accord with the intent and purpose of H.B. No.
159, H.D. 2, S.D. 1, as amended herein, and recommends that it
pass Third Reading in the form attached hereto as H.B. No. 159,
H.D. 2, S.D. 2.

                                   Respectfully submitted on
                                   behalf of the members of the
                                   Committee on Judiciary,



                                   ______________________________
                                   AVERY B. CHUMBLEY, Co-Chair



                                   ______________________________
                                   MATTHEW M. MATSUNAGA, Co-Chair

 
a