COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
89-1 Statement of findings and policy
89-3 Rights of employees
89-3.5 Religious exemption from support of employee
89-4 Payroll deductions
89-5 Hawaii labor relations board
89-5.1 Hearing notice
89-6 Appropriate bargaining units
89-8 Recognition and representation; employee
89-8.5 Negotiating authority; Hawaii health systems
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
89-16.6 Disclosure to an exclusive representative
89-17 List of employee organizations and exclusive
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).
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.
The intermediate court of appeals erred in staying union's privatization claims to pursue administrative remedies before the Hawaii labor relations board under the primary jurisdiction doctrine; this chapter does not require that the Hawaii labor relations board first pass on controversies related to privatization. 133 H. 188, 325 P.3d 600 (2014).
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.
To the extent that there may be a conflict between the jurisdictional provisions of this chapter and chapter 658A, this chapter takes precedence over chapter 658A. 132 H. 492 (App.), 323 P.3d 136 (2014).
Discussed: 133 H. 188, 325 P.3d 600 (2014).