STAND

STAND. COM. REP. 1085

Honolulu, Hawaii

, 2003

RE: S.B. No. 768

S.D. 1

H.D. 1

Honorable Calvin K.Y. Say

Speaker, House of Representatives

Twenty-Second State Legislature

Regular Session of 2003

State of Hawaii

Sir:

Your Committee on Labor and Public Employment, to which was referred S.B. No. 768, S.D. 1, entitled:

"A BILL FOR AN ACT RELATING TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING,"

begs leave to report as follows:

The purpose of this bill is to minimize the disruption of public services and programs by reinstating binding arbitration for employees of collective bargaining units (2), (3), (4), (6), (8), and (13) in the event of an impasse between the employer and the exclusive representative of the collective bargaining unit.

The Honolulu Police Department testified in support of this measure. The Hawaii Government Employees Association testified in support of the intent of this measure. The Department of Human Resources Development (DHRD), Department of the Attorney General (AG), and Office of Collective Bargaining and Managed Competition testified in opposition to this bill.

The "right to strike" by public employees of specific bargaining units was reinstated in 2000 by Act 253, Session Laws of Hawaii 2000, otherwise known as the Civil Service Reform Act. At the time, it was believed that reinstating the "right to strike" would promote meaningful and forthright bargaining by both labor and management. However, concerns were raised regarding the impact a strike by public workers would have on the provision of necessary governmental services and the State's fragile economy.

Your Committee finds that the use of binding arbitration is a reasonable way of settling labor disputes between a public employer and an exclusive representative of a collective bargaining unit. Through the use of arbitration, continuity of governmental services remains intact, and there is no disruption in the provision of public services and programs. Moreover, the use of a neutral third party to render a decision on a dispute between a public employer and an exclusive representative of a collective bargaining unit appears to be fair to all parties involved.

However, your Committee understands the concerns raised by DHRD regarding the concept of essential workers. Accordingly, your Committee has amended this bill by:

(1) Inserting language defining an "essential worker" and "essential position";

(2) Clarifying that any employee designated "essential" by an employer shall not have the ability to strike;

(3) Allowing the public employer to petition the board to conduct an investigation as to the effects a strike may have on the health and safety of the public;

(4) Requiring the board, if the board through its investigation finds that danger to the health or safety of the public is present or imminent, to establish specific requirements that must be complied with by both the public employer and employees in order to avoid or remove the imminent or present danger;

(5) Establishing requirements the public employer must meet to notify an employee of the employee's designation as an "essential employee"; and

(6) Making technical, nonsubstantive amendments for purposes of clarity, consistency, and style.

As affirmed by the record of votes of the members of your Committee on Labor and Public Employment that is attached to this report, your Committee is in accord with the intent and purpose of S.B. No. 768, S.D. 1, as amended herein, and recommends that it pass Second Reading in the form attached hereto as S.B. No. 768, S.D. 1, H.D. 1, and be referred to the Committee on Finance.

Respectfully submitted on behalf of the members of the Committee on Labor and Public Employment,

		____________________________ MARCUS R. OSHIRO, Chair