Del Monte Fresh Produce (Hawaii) v. Ilwu
| Decision Date | 14 November 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 27265.,27265. |
| Citation | 146 P.3d 1066 |
| Parties | DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE (HAWAII), INC.; Edward C. Littleton; Stacie Sasagawa; Gordon Rezentes; and Dixon Suzuki, Appellants-Appellants, v. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE AND WAREHOUSE UNION, LOCAL 142, AFL-CIO, Union-Appellee-Appellee, and Hawaii Labor Relations Board; Brian K. Nakamura, Chairperson Chester C. Kunitake, Board Member; and Kathleen Racuya-Markrich, Board Member, Appellees-Appellees. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Barry W. Marr and Christopher S. Yeh (of Marr Hipp Jones & Wang), Honolulu, on the briefs, for appellants-appellants Del Monte Fresh Produce (Hawaii), Inc., Edward C. Littleton, Stacie Sasagawa, Gordon Rezentes, and Dixon Suzuki.
Herbert Takahashi and Rebecca L. Covert (of Takahashi, Masui, Vasconcellos & Covert), Honolulu, on the briefs, for Union-appellee-appellee International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 142, AFL-CIO.
Valri Lei Kunimoto, on the record, Honolulu, for appellees-appellees Hawaii Labor Relations Board; Brian K. Nakamura, Chairperson Chester C. Kunitake, Board Member; and Kathleen Racuya-Markrich, Board Member.
Appellant-appellants Del Monte Fresh Produce (Hawaii), Inc., Edward C. Littleton, Stacie Sasagawa, Gordon Rezentes, and Dixon Suzuki1 [hereinafter, collectively, Del Monte] appeal from the April 1, 2005 final judgment of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit,2 affirming the Hawaii Labor Relations Board's (HLRB) ruling in favor of appellee-appellee International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 142, AFL-CIO [hereinafter ILWU or Union] in a labor dispute arising out of the downsizing and relocation of Del Monte's chilled and frozen fruit operations facility in Honolulu.
On appeal, Del Monte argues that: (1) the HLRB erred in finding that Del Monte violated Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 377-6(4) (1993) by refusing to bargain in good faith with the Union; (2) the HLRB erred in finding that Del Monte interfered with or discriminated against the Union, in violation of HRS §§ 377-6(1) and (3), in an "inherently destructive" manner; and (3) the HLRB's remedial order, which, among other things, required Del Monte to award certain laid-off workers "enhanced separation benefits identified in previous negotiations or the cash value thereof," was in violation of the HLRB's statutory authority.
As discussed below, we affirm the circuit court's rulings upholding the HLRB's conclusion that Del Monte committed unfair labor practices under HRS § 377-6(4), for failing to meet its bargaining obligation, and under HRS § 377-6(1), for interfering with the exercise of guaranteed employee rights, because there was sufficient evidence to support both charges. However, we reverse the circuit court's decision regarding HRS § 377-6(3) because the HLRB incorrectly interpreted the law, applying an erroneous understanding of what activity can constitute "discrimination." Lastly, we hold that the HLRB has broad statutory authority under HRS § 377-9(d) to craft remedies for unfair labor practices, and that the remedy in this case was not an abuse of discretion.
Therefore, we affirm in part and reverse in part the circuit court's April 1, 2005 final judgment.
Del Monte Fresh Produce (Hawaii), Inc. grows and sells whole pineapple and processed pineapple products. The company is part of a larger corporation, the Del Monte Fresh Produce Company, which has headquarters in Coral Gables, Florida. At the time this action arose, Del Monte's Hawai`i operations consisted of three units: the O`ahu Plantation [hereinafter, Plantation], where pineapples are grown and harvested; Kunia Processing and Packing Operations unit, also known as Kunia Fresh Fruit [hereinafter, KFF], where pineapples are packaged whole or processed and made into concentrate juice; and the Waiakamilo Honolulu Chilled/Frozen Operation [hereinafter, HCFO], where pineapples are processed into chilled pineapple products.
The ILWU, Local 142 has been the exclusive bargaining representative of Del Monte employees since 1945. The employees are organized into three separate bargaining units, which correspond to the three Del Monte operations: Plantation, KFF, and HCFO. Each bargaining unit has its own collective bargaining agreement, with separate seniority systems within the unit. In addition to these Union employees, Del Monte employs "seasonal" employees whose employment is not covered by the collective bargaining agreement until they have worked 100 days for the company, at which point they become "covered seasonal."3
In September 2001, Del Monte's corporate parent decided to relocate HCFO work to Sanger, California. In March 2003, a decision was made to keep limited HCFO work in Hawai`i (for the local market), but to transfer this work to the KFF concentrate facility, closing the Waiakamilo HCFO facility.
On April 11, 2003, the company informed the Union of these plans through a letter sent to the Union, HCFO employees, and the Director of the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations. In the letter, the company indicated that it would lay off sixty-seven of seventy-seven HCFO employees, effective June 30, 2003. The letter also stated that Del Monte had 154 vacancies at the Plantation and KFF facility to which all displaced workers could apply.
On May 30, 2003, Del Monte posted vacancies for fourteen HCFO positions that would work in the Kunia plant.
By June 1, 2003, Del Monte and its parent company had finalized plans to merge operations at Kunia. Under this plan, a downsized processing unit at KFF would be made up of fourteen HCFO positions who would process pineapple and make concentrate. Further, Del Monte wished to transfer two permanent KFF employees who had worked in concentrate into the new HCFO bargaining unit at Kunia. The relocated HCFO employees would provide limited fresh fruit production in addition to operating the concentrate plant, while the rest of the KFF employees would return to the Fresh Fruit operation.
Del Monte set July 1, 2003 as the date to have the HCFO operations up and running in Kunia.
On April 22, 2003, the ILWU requested to bargain with Del Monte over the decision to close the HCFO plant and its effects. At the same time, the Union requested information from the company related to the decision to close the HCFO plant and lay off, transfer, and reassign its employees as a result, as well as a request for information related to the effects of the closing. Del Monte responded by providing some information and by engaging in effects bargaining.4
On May 12, 2003, the Union filed an unfair labor practice complaint with the HLRB, alleging that Del Monte refused to bargain collectively, refused to provide information, and interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees "in the exercise of their Section 7 rights under the Act."5
In the second week of June 2003, the parties commenced bargaining sessions concerning the effects of the closure, including layoffs and benefits.
The parties met on June 10, 12, 17, and 21, 2003. Del Monte's bargaining committee met with the Union at the Union's own hall making itself available for each of these sessions and never refusing to meet with the Union.
At the first effects bargaining meeting, on June 10, 2003, the Union proposed the following:
(1) Enhanced severance benefits for laid-off HCFO workers, consisting of two additional days of pay for each year of service, with both lump-sum and installment pay options.
(2) Allowing the use of pre-tax severance benefits to pay for extended medical coverage for laid-off workers.
(3) Extended housing for one month of each year of service at current rental rates (in addition to the contractual extension of one year).
(4) Various options for current HCFO employees:
(A) Using a joint labor/management subcommittee to determine the qualified labor pool from which each retained bargaining unit position at HCFO Kunia would be selected;
(B) Allowing employees who left prior to the scheduled layoff date to receive full separation benefits; and
(C) Permitting senior employees to elect severance, bumping, or transfer into the new positions with two-week familiarization period.
(5) Rules governing the transfer to the merged unit:
(A) Retention of all HCFO bargaining unit job classifications at HCFO Kunia, with laid-off HCFO employees retaining seniority rights;
(B) Giving laid-off HCFO employees an option to suspend severance and retain recall rights for future vacancies at the merged unit; and
(C) Transferring five HCFO employees into KFF, and creating forty upgraded6 regular KFF positions over four years.
The parties caucused, and the Del Monte Committee presented its initial position and responded to the Union proposal. Negotiations continued at the June 12, 2003 session, where the Union began by asking for a complete response to its prior information requests and presented a revised proposal.
At the June 17, 2003 session, Del Monte presented a package proposal, which the Union rejected. However, after further negotiations, several tentative agreements were reached, subject to an agreement on all matters. The parties agreed to: (1) an additional one-half day of severance benefits for each year of service for laid-off workers; (2) various pay-out options for severance benefits; (3) an additional two months of medical coverage for affected employees; and (4) an additional month of housing for each year of service. Furthermore, with respect to the HCFO employee options after the closure, the parties agreed to: (5) use of a joint...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haleakala v. Bd. of Land
...Save Diamond Head Waters, 121 Hawai'i at 25, 211 P.3d at 83 (quoting Del Monte Fresh Produce (Hawai'i), Inc. v. Int'l Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 142, AFL–CIO, 112 Hawai'i 489, 499, 146 P.3d 1066, 1076 (2006) ). An agency's interpretation of its own rules is generally entitled to d......
-
Pila‘a 400, LLC v. Bd. of Land & Natural Res.
...and circumstances of the particular case.’ " Id. at 25, 211 P.3d at 83 (quoting Del Monte Fresh Produce (Hawaii), Inc. v. Int'l Longshore & Warehouse Union, 112 Hawai‘i 489, 499, 146 P.3d 1066, 1076 (2006) ).III.A. Pila‘a 400 contends that because the BLNR and the DLNR only have jurisdictio......
-
Young v. State
...starting point for statutory interpretation is the language of the statute itself." Del Monte Fresh Produce (Haw.), Inc. v. Int'l Longshore & Warehouse Union, Local 142 , 146 P.3d 1066, 1076 (Haw. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). But ours is not an administrative-law case; it is a ......
-
Sierra Club v. Department of Transp.
...factual questions should be reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard. Del Monte Fresh Produce (Hawaii), Inc. v. Int'l Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 142, 112 Hawai`i 489, 499, 146 P.3d 1066, 1076 (2006) ("A[n agency's] conclusion of law that presents mixed questions of fact and law......