Appeal of Harper, 4865
| Decision Date | 23 September 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 4865,4865 |
| Citation | 52 Haw. 313,475 P.2d 53 |
| Parties | Appeal of Joe C. HARPER, a Dismissed Employee. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The Reorganization Act was enacted to meet the Hawaii constitutional requirement that there be 20 departments of state government and to assure, wherever possible, continued employment in the state government for all employees.
2. Section 32 of the Reorganization Act provides that an employee without tenure gains civil service status upon being transferred to a civil service position for which he is qualified.
3. A request by a State agency that a position be reclassified does not in itself void the position.
4. HRS § 76-46 clearly and unequivocally provides that no dismissal shall be effective unless 10 days before the effective date of the dismissal the employee receives notice.
5. Clear and unambiguous language leaves nothing for a court to construe.
6. Clear language in a letter stating that dismissal would take place on the date of the letter does not leave room for the contrary construction that dismissal would be effective 10 days after the letter's delivery.
7. An employee's procedural rights are not waived merely because the employee does not inform the State of its failure to follow them properly.
Nobuki Kamida, Deputy Atty. Gen., Honolulu (Bertram T. Kanbara, Atty. Gen., with him on the breifs), for appellant.
Michiro Watanabe, Honolulu, for appellee.
Before RICHARDSON, C. J., MARUMOTO, ABE, and LEVINSON, JJ., and M. DOI, Circuit Judge, in place of KOBAYASHI, J., disqualified.
In spite of the voluminous transcript, the relevant facts of this case are very simple. It is uncontroverted that on August 21, 1959, when Hawaii became a state, Joe C. Harper occupied the position of warden of the Hawaii prison system. The record shows that in February 1961, Ray Belnap was hired under a contract to head the corrections division of the Department of Social Services. Though Belnap occupied a newly created position, he essentially assumed Harper's duties and Harper by letter dated February 15, 1961 accepted a subordinate position of warden of Oahu Prison.
The record also shows that Harper's old position of warden of the Hawaii prison system was not abolished until September 1, 1961. Miss Noonan, who was then Director of the Department of Social Services, testified that after the abolishment of that position, Harper was automatically assigned or transferred to the civil service position of superintendent of Oahu Prison. Thereafter, by letter dated October 6, 1961, Harper was summarily dismissed from that position. Harper contested the dismissal and appealed to the Civil Service Commission. One of the grounds relied upon the appeal by Harper was that the dismissal was ineffective because he was not given ten days' notice as required by HRS § 76-46. After a due hearing, the Civil Service Commission held that Harper's appeal was heard under RLH 1955, § 83-4. 1 It also ruled that Harper was not entitled to ten days notice of dismissal and sustained his dismissal for cause.
From this ruling Haper appealed to the First Circuit Court. The tral court entered a judgment reversing the ruling of the Civil Service Commission and ordered the reinstatement of Harper. The State agency appealed from this judgment.
The State agency argues that the position of warden of the Hawaii prison system was not a civil service posion and though Harper after a probationary period of six months could not be dismissed except for cause, he was not an employee with 'tenure' within the provisions of the Reorganization Act of 1959. We find the State agency's argument much ado about nothing.
The legislature enacted the Reorganization Act to reduce the number of departments of government of the territorial system to meet the Hawaii State constitutional requirement of 20 departments. 2 Also the legislature by the Act attempted to assure continued employment in the State government for all employees, civil service and non-civil service, wherever possible. The third paragraph of Section 32 3 specifically provides that an employee without 'tenure' upon being transferred to a civil service position for which he is qualified attains civil service status.
Here it is not denied by the State agency that Harper was qualified for the position of superintendent of Oahu Prison. Further, the evidence is uncontroverted that Harper had been offered the top position of the correctional division. Thus, Harper, being qualified, it would appear that when he was assigned or transferred to the civil service position of superintendent of Oahu Prison he acquired the status of a civil service employee.
But to counter this conclusion the State agency argues that Harper could not have been transferred or appointed to a civil service position for the reason that: In August 1961, the State agency initiated a request for the reclassification and permission to fill the position; the Department of Budget and Finance approved the request on Septermber 18, 1961; this approval was sent to and received by the Department of Personnel Services on September 19, 1961; and the reclassification of the position was not officially established until after October 6, 1961.
As we stated above, when Harper was assigned duties as superintendent of Oahu Prison, a civil service position, he acquired a civil service status. The fact that a request for reclassification of the position was pending did not in any way void or nullify that position. It would be ridiculous to hold that whenever there is a request for the reclassification of a civil service position that position becomes void.
Now, Harper as a civil service employee was entitled to all the rights and privileges under civil service law, HRS c. 76.
The pertinent portion of HRS § 76-46 provides:
'No dismissal or demotion of a regular employee 4 shall be effective...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tighe v. City and County of Honolulu
...Inc. v. Labor and Industrial Relations Appeal Board, 52 Haw. 577, 579-580, 482 P.2d 151, 152-153 (1971); In Re Appeal of Harper, 52 Haw. 313, 317, 475 P.2d 53, 55 (1970). '(A) statute should not be extended beyond the fair and reasonable meaning of its terms because of some supposed policy ......
-
State v. Park
...Twentieth Century Furniture, Inc. v. Labor & Industrial Relations Appeal Board, 52 Haw. 577, 482 P.2d 151 (1971); Appeal of Harper, 52 Haw. 313, 475 P.2d 53 (1970); Kauai v. McGonagle, 33 Haw. 915 (1936); Territory v. Narimatsu, 41 Haw. 398 We think the term 'primary election' is a common, ......
-
University of Hawaii v. Leahi Foundation, 5587
...Inc. v. Labor and Industrial Relations Appeal Board, 52 Haw. 577, 579-80, 482 P.2d 151, 152-53 (1971); In re Appeal of Harper, 52 Haw. 313, 317, 475 P.2d 53, 55 (1970). We therefore conclude that the appellant is entitled to the following credit, being the sums expended by the appellee out ......
-
Shorba v. Shiro Amioka
...second reason at this late stage, when defendant originally based his action solely on the first reason. Defendant cites In re Harper, 52 Haw. 313, 475 P.2d 53 (1970), and argues that the holding in that case which requires the government agency to follow the prescribed statutory procedure ......