In re United Pub. Workers

Decision Date12 May 2022
Docket NumberCAAP-18-0000904
Citation151 Hawai‘i 133,508 P.3d 1219 (Table)
Parties In the MATTER OF the Mediation Between UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS, AFSCME, LOCAL 646, AFL-CIO, Union-Appellee, and City and County of Honolulu, Department of Environmental Services, Refuse Division (on bulky item refuse collection) (KA-13-09) (2013-024), Employer-Appellant
CourtHawaii Court of Appeals

On the briefs:

Ernest H. Nomura, Deputy Corporation Counsel, for Employer-Appellant.

Herbert R. Takahashi, Rebecca L. Covert, for Union-Appellee.

(By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and McCullen, JJ.)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Employer-Appellant City and County of Honolulu, Department of Environmental Services, Refuse Division (City or Employer ), appeals from the Judgment entered by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit on October 22, 2018.1 For the reasons explained below, we affirm the Judgment.

BACKGROUND

Union-Appellee United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL-CIO (UPW or Union ) initiated three class grievances against the City. UPW and the City agreed to have one person serve as arbitrator for all three cases. UPW served a discovery request upon the City. The City did not respond. UPW filed a motion to compel and for sanctions. The arbitrator granted the motion and imposed sanctions against the City. The April 3, 2018 "Order Granting Motion to Compel and for Sanctions" provided, in relevant part:

I. Employer shall pay to the union sanctions in the amount of $4,188.48 for continuing and repeated violations of Section 15.09 and the arbitrator's prior cease and desist order. ... Payment of the sanctions by employer to the union in the amount of $4,188.48 shall be made not later than 30 days from the date of this order.
J. Employer is hereby ordered to provide prompt, full, and complete responses to the union's request for information dated February 9, 2018 by not later than 7 days from the date of this order, and shall cease and desist from continuing to violate Section 15.09 of the unit 1 agreement.
K. In the event employer fails to comply with paragraphs I and J of this decision and order, employer shall pay to the union a daily assessment to be determined by the Arbitrator. If there is non-compliance with the terms and conditions of this order, additional attorney's fees incurred by the union to enforce compliance with this decision may be ordered.

(citations omitted).

The City did not comply with the Order Granting Motion to Compel. UPW moved for entry of a partial final award. The arbitrator granted the motion and issued a "Partial Final Arbitration Decision and Award" (Partial Final Award ) on June 7, 2018. The Partial Final Award provided:

1. Employer shall pay to the Union daily assessments of $300.00 per day from April 10, 2018 to May 21, 2018 for a total of $12,300[.] The assessments shall be paid by the Employer to the Union not later than forty-five (45) days from the date of this decision and award. In the event Employer fails to make timely payment of the daily assessments, Employer shall pay interest on the amounts due and owing at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum to the date payment of the full amount due and owing is actually made to the Union.
2. Employer shall pay to the Union $4,188.48 for attorney's fees which were due and owing on and after May 3, 2018 under the April 3, 2018 order granting the motion to compel and for sanctions together with interest assessed at ten percent (10%) per annum from May 3, 2018 to the date payment is actually made by Employer to the Union.
3. Employer shall pay to the Union additional attorney's fees in the amount of $15,078.53 for attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $562.47 to enforce compliance with the remedial terms of the April 3, 2018 order granting the motion to compel and for sanctions. The additional reasonable attorney's fees and costs shall be paid by the Employer to the Union not later than forty-five (45) days from the date of this decision and award. In the event Employer fails to make timely payment of the additional costs and reasonable attorney's fees, Employer shall pay interest on the amounts due and owing at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum to the date payment of the full amount due and owing is actually made to the Union.

UPW then initiated a special proceeding in circuit court to confirm the Partial Final Award. The City did not move to vacate the Partial Final Award. The record does not contain a memorandum in opposition filed by the City.2 The circuit court entered an order granting UPW's motion and the Judgment. This appeal by the City followed.

POINT OF ERROR

The City raises a single, narrow point of error:

"The circuit court erred as a matter of law in granting UPW's Motion to Confirm in concluding that the Partial Final Award was subject to confirmation under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 658A-22."

The City did not move to vacate the Partial Final Award and the record contains no memorandum in opposition to UPW's motion to confirm. The only argument the City could not have waived is that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction under Chapter 658A of the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS ) to confirm the Partial Final Award. See Mathewson v. Aloha Airlines, Inc., 82 Hawai‘i 57, 69, 919 P.2d 969, 981 (1996) ("The lack of subject matter jurisdiction can never be waived by any party at any time.") (cleaned up).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

"Whether a circuit court possesses subject matter jurisdiction over a dispute relating to arbitration ... is a question of law reviewable de novo." Mathewson, 82 Hawai‘i at 69, 919 P.2d at 981 (citations omitted).

Questions of statutory interpretation are questions of law to be reviewed de novo under the right/wrong standard. Our statutory construction is guided by the following well established principles: our foremost obligation is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature, which is to be obtained primarily from the language contained in the statute itself. And we must read statutory language in the context of the entire statute and construe it in a manner consistent with its purpose.

United Public Workers, AFSCME, Loc. 646 v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 124 Hawai‘i 367, 369, 244 P.3d 604, 606 (App. 2010) (reformatted) (the Sick Leave Credit case).

DISCUSSION

HRS § 658A-22 (2016) provides:

Confirmation of award . After a party to an arbitration proceeding receives notice of an award, the party may make a motion to the court for an order confirming the award at which time the court shall issue a confirming order unless the award is modified or corrected pursuant to section 658A-20 or 658A-24 or is vacated pursuant to section 658A-23.

The City contends that HRS § 658A-22 did not authorize confirmation of the Partial Final Award because the Partial Final Award "did not address any of the substantive merits of the underlying labor grievance" and HRS § 658A-22 "contemplates a final decision on the merits, not an interim, interlocutory decision, award, or order."

The City relies upon Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright, 76 Hawai‘i 115, 869 P.2d 1334 (1994). Jenkins was an appeal from a civil lawsuit. The circuit court granted motions to dismiss filed by six of the seven defendants. The plaintiff appealed. The six defendants contested appellate jurisdiction because the orders granting the motions to dismiss did not resolve the plaintiff's claim against the seventh defendant, and no separate judgment had been entered as required by Rule 58 of the Hawai‘i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP ). The supreme court held:

(1) An appeal may be taken from circuit court orders resolving claims against parties only after the orders have been reduced to a judgment and the judgment has been entered in favor of and against the appropriate parties pursuant to HRCP 58 ; (2) if a judgment purports to be the final judgment in a case involving multiple claims or multiple parties, the judgment (a) must specifically identify the party or parties for and against whom the judgment is entered, and (b) must (i) identify the claims for which it is entered, and (ii) dismiss any claims not specifically identified; (3) if the judgment resolves fewer than all claims against all parties, or reserves any claim for later action by the court, an appeal may be taken only if the judgment contains the language necessary for certification under HRCP 54(b) ; and (4) an appeal from any judgment will be dismissed as premature if the judgment does not, on its face, either resolve all claims against all parties or contain the finding necessary for certification under HRCP 54(b).

Id. at 119, 869 P.2d at 1338. Jenkins is inapposite because HRCP Rules 54(b) and 58 do not apply to "[a]pplications to a circuit court under [HRS] chapter 658A, relating to arbitration, and proceedings thereon prior to judgment[.]" HRCP Rule 81(a)(5).

The City also relies upon the Sick Leave Credit case. That case involved two class-action labor grievances. The union and employer agreed to arbitrate the grievances pursuant to provisions in the parties' collective bargaining agreements. The circuit court appointed an arbitrator. At some point, the City contested the arbitrability of the grievances. The arbitrator held a hearing, then issued an "Arbitrator's Determination on the Issue of Arbitrability[.]" The arbitrator decided "that the class grievance is arbitrable on its merits and this matter shall proceed to further arbitration for a determination on the merits of the class grievance." Id. at 368, 244 P.3d at 605. The union moved to confirm the arbitrator's decision. The circuit court granted the motion and entered a judgment. The City appealed. We held that the legislature "intended [the term] ‘award’ as used in HRS § 658A–28(a)3 to mean a final arbitration award and not merely any arbitration intermediate decision ." Id. at 370, 244 P.3d at 607 (cleaned up) (bold italics added). Because the arbitrator's decision regarding arbitrability was not an "award" under HRS § 658A–28(a), we dismissed...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT