STAND. COM. REP. NO. 889

 

Honolulu, Hawaii

                  

 

RE:    S.B. No. 1642

       S.D. 1

 

 

 

Honorable Colleen Hanabusa

President of the Senate

Twenty-Fourth State Legislature

Regular Session of 2007

State of Hawaii

 

Madam President:

 

     Your Committee on Judiciary and Labor, to which was referred S.B. No. 1642 entitled:

 

"A BILL FOR AN ACT RELATING TO LABOR,"

 

begs leave to report as follows:

 

     The purpose of this measure is to amend sections 89-9(d), Hawaii Revised Statutes (H.R.S.) by clarifying that certain statutory actions shall not be used to invalidate collective bargaining agreements in effect on and after June 30, 2007, and such actions may be included in collective bargaining agreements.

 

     Testimony in support of this measure was received from the Hawaii State Teachers Association (HSTA) and the Hawaii Government Employees Association (HGEA).

 

     Testimony opposing the measure was received from the Attorney General, Office of Collective Bargaining, Department of Human Resources Development, Department of Education, Judiciary, County of Maui Police Department and Department of Personnel Services and the County of Hawaii Department of Human Resources.

 

     In 2005, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled in United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL-CIO v. Hanneman, 106 Hawaii 359, 105 P.3d 236, that the Hawaii Labor Relations Board (HLRB) erred in concluding that the City and County of Honolulu's proposed transfer was subject to collective bargaining under Hawaii Revised Statutes, section 89-9(a), H.R.S.  The facts of this case included a 1991 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the United Public Workers (UPW) and the City and County of Honolulu (CCH) agreeing to the automated refuse collection system.  In 1993, the same parties entered into another Memorandum of Agreement agreeing to no reduction of staff and that reassignment and transfer will be determined on the basis of seniority. (emphasis added)  In 2001, the CCH gave UPW notice of its intent to unilaterally transfer thirteen manual collectors from the over-staffed Pearl City base yard to the understaffed base yard in Honolulu.

 

     Under Section 89-9(d), H.R.S., " . . . the employer and the exclusive representative may negotiate procedures governing the promotion and transfer of employees to positions within a bargaining unit, procedures governing the suspension, demotion, discharge, or other disciplinary actions taken against employees, and procedures governing the layoff of employees; . . ."  (emphasis added)

 

     In interpreting the Hanneman case, one cannot disregard the two MOAs that determined the transfer of these employees.  Therefore, the transfer was found to be in concert with these MOAs. The MOAs were allowed under section 89-9(d), H.R.S., and therefore, either party had the right to exercise their rights under these MOAs.  Your Committee believes that the Hawaii Supreme Court was upholding the management rights as derived from the MOAs. 

 

     However, some have viewed the Hanneman case allowing management rights generally whether or not MOAs are involved.  Your Committee finds that discussion needs to be continued and therefore is placing a delayed effective date in the measure.  Nonsubstantive and technical changes have been made as recommended by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

 

     As affirmed by the record of votes of the members of your Committee on Judiciary and Labor that is attached to this report, your Committee is in accord with the intent and purpose of S.B.


No. 1642, as amended herein, and recommends that it pass Second Reading in the form attached hereto as S.B. No. 1642, S.D. 1, and be placed on the calendar for Third Reading.

 

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

 

 

 

____________________________

CLAYTON HEE, Chair