State v. Nakanelua
| Decision Date | 31 January 2014 |
| Docket Number | CAAP–10–0000166.,Nos. 30444,30568,s. 30444 |
| Citation | 132 Hawai'i 492,323 P.3d 136 |
| Court | Hawaii Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of Hawai‘i; City and County of Honolulu; County of Hawai‘i; County of Maui; County of Kauai; Hawai‘i Health Systems Corporation ; and the Judiciary, Complainants/Appellees–Appellees (Case No. CU–10–278) v. Dayton NAKANELUA, State Director, United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL–CIO and United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL–CIO (2009–42), Respondents/Appellants–Appellants, and Hawai‘i Labor Relations Board; James B. Nicholson; Sesnita A.D. Moepono; and Rock B. Ley, Agency/Appellees–Appellees. United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL–CIO, Complainant/Appellant–Appellant (Case No. CE–10–726), v. Neil Dietz, Chief Negotiator, Office of Collective Bargaining, State of Hawai‘i (2009–043), Respondent/Appellee–Appellee, and Hawai‘i Labor Relations Board; James B. Nicholson; Sesnita A.D. Moepono; and Rock B. Ley, Agency/Appellees–Appellees (Civil No. 09–1–2488). United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL–CIO, Union–Appellee/Cross–Appellant, v. State of Hawai‘i; The Judiciary; Hawai‘i Health Systems Corporation, Employers–Appellants/Cross–Appellees, and City and County of Honolulu (2009–044), Employer–Appellee (Special Proceedings No. 09–1–0305). State Of Hawai‘i, City and County of Honolulu; County of Hawai‘i; County of Maui; County of Kauai; Hawai‘i Health Systems Corporation ; and the Judiciary, Complainants/Appellees–Appellees (Case No. CU–10–278), v. Dayton Nakanelua, State Director, United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL–CIO and United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL–CIO (2009–042), Respondents/Appellants–Appellants, and Hawai‘i Labor Relations Board; James B. Nicholson; Sesnita A.D. Moepono; and Rock B. Ley, Agency/Appellees–Appellees. United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL–CIO, Complainant/Appellant–Appellant (Case No. CE–10–726), v. Neil Dietz, Chief Negotiator, Office of Collective Bargaining, State of Hawai‘i (2009–043), Respondent/Appellee–Appellee, and Hawai‘i Labor Relations Board; James B. Nicholson; Sesnita A.D. Moepono; and Rock B. Ley, Agency/Appellees–Appellees (Civil No. 10–1–0323). |
Herbert R. Takahashi, Rebecca L. Covert, Davina W. Lam, (Takahashi and Covert, AAL), on the briefs, for United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL–CIO and Dayton Nakanelua.
James E. Halvorson, Nelson Y. Nabeta, Jeffrey A. Keating, Deputy Attorneys General Department of the Attorney General, State of Hawai‘i, on the briefs, for State of Hawai‘i; the Judiciary, Hawaii Health Systems Corporation; and Neil Dietz.
Valri Lei Kunimoto, Hawai‘i Labor Relations Board, on the briefs, for the Hawai‘i Labor Relations Board and its members.
These consolidated appeals stem from a dispute between government employers and a government-employee union regarding the process of selecting a neutral arbitrator after an impasse was reached in the parties' renegotiation of their collective bargaining agreement (CBA) for a new term. The type of arbitration involved in this case, known as "interest arbitration,"3 is designed to determine the terms of the parties' CBA when the parties cannot come to an agreement and an impasse is reached. The use of arbitration to resolve the impasse in this case is mandated by statute.
The government employers, the State of Hawai‘i (State), the Judiciary, Hawaii Health Systems Corporation, and the City and County of Honolulu (City) (collectively, "Employer"), and the government-employee union, United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL–CIO (UPW), reached an impasse in the renegotiation of the CBA for Bargaining Unit 10 (Unit 10), which is comprised of institutional, health, and correctional workers. Employer and UPW entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) setting forth an alternate impasse procedure for selecting a panel of arbitrators to conduct the arbitration required by Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 89–11 (2012) to resolve the impasse. However, after a dispute arose over the selection of the neutral arbitrator under the MOA, both Employer and UPW filed prohibited practice complaints with the Hawai‘i Labor Relations Board (HLRB or Board). UPW also filed a motion to compel arbitration concerning this dispute with the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court).
The HLRB issued an order for interlocutory relief in Employer's and UPW's prohibited practice cases that directed the American Arbitration Association (AAA) to select the neutral arbitrator. After the neutral arbitrator was selected, arbitration hearings were held and the arbitration panel issued its award. UPW filed a motion to confirm the arbitration award with the Circuit Court, which the Circuit Court granted. In these consolidated appeals, neither UPW nor Employer challenges the terms of the arbitration award or seeks to invalidate the award, which pertains to the 2009–2011 CBA. After the Circuit Court issued its order confirming the arbitration award, UPW filed a motion in Circuit Court to have Employer found in civil contempt for allegedly violating the arbitration award and disobeying the confirmation order by failing to meet and confer to complete the final drafting of the CBA. The Circuit Court denied UPW's motion.
On appeal, UPW argues that the Circuit Court erred in: (1) ‘determining that the HLRB, and not the Circuit Court, had jurisdiction to resolve the parties'4 dispute over the selection of the neutral arbitrator; (2) determining that the HLRB had not exceeded its authority in issuing the order for interlocutory relief directing the AAA to select the neutral arbitrator; (3) determining that the HLRB had not erred or violated UPW's due process rights in ruling that UPW had committed a prohibited practice in connection with the selection of the neutral arbitrator; and (4) denying UPW's motion to find Employer in civil contempt.
We conclude that because neither UPW nor Employer challenges or seeks to invalidate the terms of the arbitration award on appeal, and UPW, in particular, has moved to confirm and enforce the arbitration award, UPW's challenges to the selection of the neutral arbitrator in these appeals are moot. However, we further conclude that certain aspects of UPW's challenges to the selection of the neutral arbitrator, namely, whether the HLRB or the Circuit Court had original jurisdiction to resolve the parties' dispute over the selection and whether the HLRB exceeded its authority in the remedial interlocutory relief it granted, falls within the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine. See Hawaii Gov't Emps. Ass'n, AFSCME, Local 152, AFLCIO v. Lingle (hereinafter, " HGEA "), 124 Hawai‘i 197, 202 n. 8, 239 P.3d 1, 6 n. 8 (2010). As explained in greater detail below, we hold that UPW's and Employer's dispute over the selection of the neutral arbitrator and UPW's motion for civil contempt involved controversies concerning prohibited practices over which the HLRB had exclusive original jurisdiction. We further hold that the HLRB did not exceed its authority in issuing its order for interlocutory relief. Accordingly, we hold that UPW is not entitled to the relief it requests in these consolidated appeals.
HRS § 89–11 (2012)5 establishes the process for resolving an impasse between a public employer and the exclusive bargaining representative of a bargaining unit in negotiating the terms of a renewed CBA. HRS § 89–11(e), which applies to Unit 10, provides for mediation if an impasse exists, and then submission to arbitration if the impasse continues for more than twenty days.6 In this type of arbitration, known as "interest arbitration," the arbitrator or arbitration panel is used to resolve the impasse by determining the actual contract terms that will bind the parties during the life of their new collective bargaining agreement.7
HRS § 89–11(e)(2)(A)–(D) sets forth procedures for selecting a three-member panel to conduct the interest arbitration and deadlines for the arbitration panel to hold a hearing and issue the arbitration decision. HRS § 89–11(f) establishes the factors the arbitration panel must give weight to in reaching its decision and requires the panel to "include in its written report or decision an explanation of how the factors were taken into account [.]"8 HRS § 89–11(a) authorizes the parties to enter into a written agreement setting forth an alternate impasse procedure to the one set forth in HRS § 89–11(e) that culminates in an arbitration decision pursuant to HRS § 89–11(f).9 The alternate impasse procedure is required to specify whether the parties desire an arbitrator or arbitration panel; how the neutral arbitrator will be determined or the name of the neutral arbitrator selected by the parties; and other details regarding the issuance of the arbitration decision. HRS § 89–11(a). Although HRS § 89–11(a) permits the parties to agree to an alternate impasse procedure for selecting arbitrators and conducting the arbitration, HRS § 89–11 requires that the impasse be resolved through arbitration.10
On November 20, 2008, UPW entered into negotiations with Employer over the renewal of and modifications to the Unit 10 CBA for the period from July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2011. The parties could not reach mutual agreement on all the terms being negotiated, and thus, the HLRB issued an order pursuant to HRS § 89–11(c)(2) declaring that the parties had reached an impasse. On March 3, 2009, UPW and Employer entered into an MOA setting forth an alternative impasse procedure pursuant to HRS § 89–11(a). The MOA named Dayton Nakanelua (Nakanelua), the UPW State Director, and Marie Laderta (Laderta), the Chief Negotiator for the State, as the representatives for UPW and Employer, respectively.
The MOA set forth the procedure and deadlines for selecting a panel of three arbitrators. Employer and UPW would each select ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Nakanelua
...was a conflict between the jurisdictional provisions of HRS chapters 89 and 658A, the former takes precedence. State v. Nakanelua, 132 Hawai‘i 492, 323 P.3d 136 (App.2014). The UPW challenges that ruling and other aspects of the ICA's opinion.Thus, we must decide whether the HLRB or the cir......
- Founders Ins. Co. v. Kim & Jon, Inc.