Hoopai v. Civil Service Com'n

• Decision Date: 21 December 2004
• Docket Number: No. 23912., No. 23883
• Citation: 106 Haw. 205,103 P.3d 365
• Parties: Jacob E. HOOPAI, Appellant-Appellee v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, City and County of Honolulu; Department of Civil Service, City and County of Honolulu; and Emergency Services Department, City and County of Honolulu, Appellees-appellants and United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 464, AFL-CIO, Party-in-Interest-Appellant. In the Matter of the Arbitration Between United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL-CIO, Union and City and County of Honolulu, Department of Health, Emergency Medical Services (Grievance of Derrick Young; MR96-29), Employer.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

103 P.3d 365

106 Haw. 205

Jacob E. HOOPAI, Appellant-Appellee v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, City and County of Honolulu; Department of Civil Service, City and County of Honolulu; and Emergency Services Department, City and County of Honolulu, Appellees-appellants and United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 464, AFL-CIO, Party-in-Interest-Appellant.

In the Matter of the Arbitration Between United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL-CIO, Union and

City and County of Honolulu, Department of Health, Emergency Medical Services (Grievance of Derrick Young; MR96-29), Employer.

Nos. 23883, 23912.

Supreme Court of Hawai'i.

December 21, 2004.

Lori Ann K.K. Sunakoda, Deputy Corporation Counsel, City and County of Honolulu, on the briefs, for appellees-appellants.

Herbert R. Takahashi and Rebecca Covert, Honolulu, (Takahashi, Masui & Vasconcellos), on the briefs, for party-in-interest-appellant.

Colleen Hanabusa, on the briefs, for appellant-appellee.

LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA, ACOBA, and DUFFY, JJ.; with MOON, C.J., concurring separately.

Opinion of the Court by ACOBA, J.

We hold in this consolidated appeal in Civil No. 99-0-3248 and Special Proceeding No. 00-1-0090 (S.P. No. 00-1-90), (1) that the general prohibition in Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 89-9(d) (1993) against a public employer and the exclusive representative of a collective bargaining unit agreeing to a "proposal ... inconsistent with merit principles" is subject to that statute's provisions allowing for, inter alia, negotiation of promotion and demotion procedures in a collective bargaining agreement and a grievance process for violation thereof, (2) that HRS § 76-1 (Supp.1999), Revised Charter of Honolulu (RCH) §§ 6-302, 6-306, 6-308, and Rules of the Civil Service Commission (RCSC) §§ 13-2 and 13-3 do not conflict with HRS § 89-9(d),¹ (3) that in the instant case, the grievance process initiated by Party-in-Interest-Appellant United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL-CIO (UPW) pursuant to its collective bargaining agreement with Appellee-Appellant City and County of Honolulu (the City) was proper, (4) that the dispute as to the "demotion" of Appellant-Appellee Jacob E. Hoopai (Hoopai) was properly processed under the collective bargaining agreement grievance procedure; and (5) Hoopai has failed to establish a violation of his due process claim.

Because on the foregoing premises the circuit court of the first circuit (the court) was wrong in ruling that Appellee-Appellant Civil Service Commission (the Commission) had jurisdiction of Hoopai's complaint involving his demotion, we vacate the court's October 25, 2000 judgment remanding the case to the Commission in Civil No. 99-3248 and the court's April 11, 2000 order denying without prejudice the UPW's motion to intervene in S.P. No. 00-1-90, and remand the case to the court with instructions to grant the UPW's motion and enter judgment for the Commission, the City, Appellees-Appellants Department of Civil Service of the City (the Department) and the Emergency Services Department of the City (ESD) [hereinafter collectively, Employers],² and UPW.

Employers challenge the May 16, 2000 findings of fact (findings), conclusions of law (conclusions) and order of the court and appeal from the court's October 25, 2000 judgment in favor of Hoopai.³ UPW challenges the aforesaid May 16, 2000 findings, conclusions and order and appeals from (1) the April 11, 2000 order denying, without prejudice, UPW's motion to intervene and (2) the said October 25, 2000 judgment.⁴

I.

A.

The facts in the present appeal ostensibly are not disputed.⁵ The pertinent facts are set forth in certain of the court's enumerated findings and the evidence adduced as follows.

1. [Hoopai] is an employee of Appellee [City], [ESD].

2. [Commission] is an agency of the [City], duly created under the [RCH] and the applicable Civil Service laws of the State of Hawai'i.

3. [City] is a body politic created under the provision of the RCH, the Constitution of the State of Hawai'i and applicable provisions of the [HRS].

4. [ESD] of the [City] is duly created under the RCH.

5. On or about June 16, 1995, [Hoopai] was promoted from the position of Mobile Emergency Care Specialist ("MECS I") to EMS Field Operations Supervisor ("FOS").

6. During the time he served as FOS, [Hoopai] received only "Excellent" evaluations.

7. [Hoopai] successfully completed his probationary period.

8. [Hoopai] was made permanent in his position on December 16, 1995.

9. After [Hoopai's] July [sic] 16, 1995 promotion, [UPW] filed a grievance on behalf of a non-selectee. This was subsequently resolved by way of a Settlement Agreement. [Hoopai] continued to serve n[sic] the position of FOS.

10. In compliance with the Settlement Agreement, a second promotion process was initiated and [Hoopai] was again "selected." [Hoopai] continued, uninterrupted, to serve as FOS since his selection in June of 1995.

11. [Hoopai's] selection was again grieved by a non-selectee [Grievant Derrick Young (Grievant)]....

On December 23, 1996, UPW initiated the grievance process. On that same day, UPW informed Hoopai by letter of the grievance procedure and its potential impact.⁶ The grievance was processed on behalf of Grievant and conducted pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement between UPW and the City, entitled "Institutional, Health, and Correctional Workers Bargaining Unit 10 Agreement."⁷ On October 20 and 30, 1997, the arbitration⁸ was conducted with the UPW, ESD and the City agreeing that the issue presented to the arbitrator was, "Did the [E]mployer violate the contract when it failed to select the Grievant for the position of [FOS], and if so, what is the appropriate remedy?" During the hearings, both Hoopai and Grievant were called as witnesses.

The remainder of the court's findings, relating to the arbitration and the subsequent appeal by Hoopai to the Commission, states as follows:

12. On February 10, 1998, the Arbitrator ruled that the selection process was still flawed and ordered the promotion set aside [hereinafter "arbitration decision"].

13. In his decision, the Arbitrator explicitly stated that he could not order the promotion of the Grievant because that would substitute his evaluation of supervisory experience for that of the employer and it would be improper.

14. [Hoopai] was subsequently demoted on April 15, 1998 effective February 25, 1998, after holding this position for almost 3 years.

15. On March 18, 1998, Hoopai filed a Petition of Appeal with the Commission.

16. Hoopai raised issues, including, but not limited to, the following: the violation of the merit principles, the preemption of the Civil Service Laws, the violation of Civil Service Rules, and improper demotion.

17. Hoopai appealed the demotion alleging improper acts [⁹] of [ESD] issued on April 15, 1998, effective February 24, 1998.

18. On May 25, 1999, [ESD's] Motion to Dismiss Appeal filed on May 17, 1999 was heard. The Motion alleged that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

19. At the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss, [Hoopai] requested that the City negotiator of collective bargaining agreements be allowed to testify on his behalf.

20. The basis of such request was to confirm that [City] does in fact believe that collective bargaining preempts civil service.

21. The Commission denied the request.

22. [Hoopai] challenged the right of Mr. Halvorson, attorney for the Commission, to participate in the evidentiary hearing and his assistance in the decision making.

23. The Commission stated on the record that Mr. Halvorson's questions do affect their decision making on the case.

24. Mr. Halvorson is not authorized to participate as a Commissioner in [Commission] hearings.

25. The Decision and Order was issued on July 27, 1999.

(Footnote added.)

The Commission's July 27, 1999 Decision and Order (Commission's order) dismissed Hoopai's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The pertinent conclusions of the Commission state as follows:

1. [HRS § 76-1] ... states that ... the policy and purpose of Chapter 76, HRS, is to establish a system of personnel administration based on merit principles ....

2. [HRS § 76-1] does not confer jurisdiction to hear appeals on any civil service commission of any jurisdiction. This section only prescribes the policy and principles that should be applied by the Commission once it has jurisdiction.

....

4. [RCH § 6-308] provides as follows: Any person aggrieved by any action of the director ... or who has been... demoted ... may appeal to the [Commission] for redress, pursuant to its rules and regulations.

5. The Commission has jurisdiction to hear the appeals from disciplinary actions pursuant to ... [RCSC § 2-34(a)], from any action of the director or appointing authority pursuant to [RCSC] § 2-34(b), and from grievances unsatisfactorily resolved at step 3 pursuant to [RCSC] § 13-3.

6. The demotion of [Hoopai] was not a disciplinary action and is therefore not within the jurisdiction of the Commission pursuant to [RCSC] § 2-34(a).

7. There is no authority to appeal the arbitrator's decision to the Commission. Only the actions of the director or an appointing authority may be appealed pursuant to [RCSC] § 2-34(b). In this case the director was performing a non-discretionary ministerial act in complying with the order of the arbitrator. The director was not acting on her own authority and there was no appealable action by the director as contemplated under [RCSC] § 2-34(b).

Moreover, in order for the Commission to find that the director had violated a civil service rule would [sic] entail an examination of the merits of the arbitration decision. The Commission has no authority to do this. Jurisdiction over arbitration decisions and awards clearly falls to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts pursuant to [HRS] Chapter 658.

8. The use of the civil service grievance procedure pursuant to [RCSC] § 13-3 is prohibited by [RCSC] §§ 13-2(b) and 13-3 for

...