State v. Nakanelua

• Decision Date: 21 January 2015
• Docket Number: SCWC–10–0000166.,Nos. SCWC–30444,SCWC–30568,s. SCWC–30444
• Citation: 134 Hawai'i 489,345 P.3d 155
• Parties: STATE of Hawai‘i, City and County of Honolulu; County of Hawai‘i; County of Maui; County of Kaua‘i; Hawai‘i Health Systems Corporation; and the Judiciary, Respondents/Complainants–Appellees–Appellees, v. Dayton NAKANELUA, State Director, United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL–CIO and United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL–CIO (2009–42), Petitioners/Respondents–Appellants–Appellants, and Hawai‘i Labor Relations Board; James B. Nicholson; Sesnita A.D. Moepono; and Rock B. Ley, Respondents/Agency–Appellees–Appellees (Case No. CU–10–278). United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL–CIO, Petitioner/ Complainant –Appellant–Appellant, v. Neil Dietz, Chief Negotiator, Office of Collective Bargaining, State of Hawai‘i (2009–043), Respondent/Respondent–Appellee–Appellee, and Hawai‘i Labor Relations Board; James B. Nicholson; Sesnita A.D. Moepono; and Rock B. Ley, Respondents/Agency–Appellees–Appellees (Case No. CE–10–726). United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL–CIO, Petitioner/ Union–Appellee, Cross–Appellant, v. State of Hawai‘i; the Judiciary; Hawai‘i Health Systems Corporation, Respondents/Employers–Appellants, Cross–Appellees, and City and County of Honolulu (2009–044), Respondent/Employer–Appellee. State of Hawai‘i, City and County of Honolulu; County of Hawai‘i; County of Maui; County of Kaua‘i; Hawai‘i Health Systems Corporation; and the Judiciary, Respondents/Complainants–Appellees–Appellees, v. Dayton Nakanelua, State Director, United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL–CIO, and United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL–CIO (2009–042), Petitioners/Respondents–Appellants–Appellants, and Hawai‘i Labor Relations Board; James B. Nicholson; Sisnita A.D. Moepono; and Rock B. Ley, Respondents/Agency–Appellees–Appellees (Case No. CU–10–278). United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL–CIO, Petitioner/ Complainant –Appellant–Appellant, v. Niel Dietz, Chief Negotiator, Office of Collective Bargaining, State of Hawai‘i (2009–043), Respondent/Respondent–Appellee–Appellee, and Hawai‘i Labor Relations Board; James B. Nicholson; Sisnita A.D. Moepono; and Rock B. Ley, Respondents/Agency–Appellees–Appellees (Case No. CE–10–726).
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

134 Hawai'i 489

345 P.3d 155

STATE of Hawai‘i, City and County of Honolulu; County of Hawai‘i; County of Maui; County of Kaua‘i; Hawai‘i Health Systems Corporation; and the Judiciary, Respondents/Complainants–Appellees–Appellees,

v.Dayton NAKANELUA, State Director, United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL–CIO and United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL–CIO (2009–42), Petitioners/Respondents–Appellants–Appellants,andHawai‘i Labor Relations Board; James B. Nicholson; Sesnita A.D. Moepono; and Rock B. Ley, Respondents/Agency–Appellees–Appellees (Case No. CU–10–278).

United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL–CIO, Petitioner/ Complainant –Appellant–Appellant,

v.Neil Dietz, Chief Negotiator, Office of Collective Bargaining, State of Hawai‘i (2009–043), Respondent/Respondent–Appellee–Appellee,andHawai‘i Labor Relations Board; James B. Nicholson; Sesnita A.D. Moepono; and Rock B. Ley, Respondents/Agency–Appellees–Appellees (Case No. CE–10–726).

United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL–CIO, Petitioner/ Union–Appellee, Cross–Appellant,

v.State of Hawai‘i; the Judiciary; Hawai‘i Health Systems Corporation, Respondents/Employers–Appellants, Cross–Appellees,andCity and County of Honolulu (2009–044), Respondent/Employer–Appellee.

State of Hawai‘i, City and County of Honolulu; County of Hawai‘i; County of Maui; County of Kaua‘i; Hawai‘i Health Systems Corporation; and the Judiciary, Respondents/Complainants–Appellees–Appellees,

v.Dayton Nakanelua, State Director, United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL–CIO, and United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL–CIO (2009–042), Petitioners/Respondents–Appellants–Appellants,andHawai‘i Labor Relations Board; James B. Nicholson; Sisnita A.D. Moepono; and Rock B. Ley, Respondents/Agency–Appellees–Appellees (Case No. CU–10–278).

United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL–CIO, Petitioner/ Complainant –Appellant–Appellant,

v.Niel Dietz, Chief Negotiator, Office of Collective Bargaining, State of Hawai‘i (2009–043), Respondent/Respondent–Appellee–Appellee,andHawai‘i Labor Relations Board; James B. Nicholson; Sisnita A.D. Moepono; and Rock B. Ley, Respondents/Agency–Appellees–Appellees (Case No. CE–10–726).

Nos. SCWC–30444

SCWC–30568

SCWC–10–0000166.

Supreme Court of Hawai‘i.

Jan. 21, 2015.

Rebecca L. Covert, Honolulu, and Davina W. Lam, for petitioner.

Nelson Y. Nabeta, Honolulu, for respondent State of Hawai‘i.

Sarah Hirakami, for respondent HLRB.

RECKTENWALD, C.J., NAKAYAMA, POLLACK, and WILSON, JJ., and Circuit Judge TRADER, in Place of McKENNA, J., Recused.

Opinion of the Court by RECKTENWALD, C.J.

This appeal requires us to determine which tribunal—the Hawai‘’ i Labor Relations Board (HLRB) or the circuit court—had jurisdiction to resolve a labor dispute regarding the selection of a neutral arbitrator.

The dispute arose out of a negotiation between the State of Hawai‘i and other governmental entities (collectively, "the State") and United Public Workers (UPW) to renew and modify a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Because the State and UPW could not reach an agreement, the HLRB declared an impasse pursuant to Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 89–11. When the parties failed to resolve the impasse within twenty days, HRS § 89–11 then mandated that they go through an impasse procedure culminating in arbitration.

The parties agreed to a process by which they would select a neutral arbitrator. Unfortunately, they were unable to do so, and each side then filed a prohibited practice complaint accusing the other of undue delay and bad faith in carrying out the impasse procedure. The HLRB determined that both parties had committed prohibited practices by their wilful failure to complete the arbitrator selection process, and ordered the American Arbitration Association (AAA) to select the neutral arbitrator.

The dispute then moved to circuit court, where the parties filed three separate cases challenging the actions of the HLRB. In one action, the UPW filed a motion to compel arbitration; the circuit court denied the motion after concluding that the HLRB had exclusive original jurisdiction over the matter because it involved prohibited practices under HRS § 89–14.¹ The other two actions challenged HLRB's finding of prohibited practices and its ordering of the AAA to select the neutral arbitrator; the circuit court affirmed the HLRB's rulings in both cases.²

On appeal, the UPW contended that the circuit court had jurisdiction over the dispute regarding the selection of the arbitrator under the Hawai‘i Uniform Arbitration Act, HRS chapter 658A. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) disagreed, concluding that the HLRB had exclusive original jurisdiction under HRS § 89–14 since the dispute involved allegations of the prohibited practices and, to the extent there 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 circuit court had jurisdiction to resolve the dispute over the selection of the arbitrator. Although we conclude that the HLRB had jurisdiction under HRS chapter 89, our reasoning differs from that of the ICA. The arbitration at issue here was required by statute as part of the legislatively mandated process for resolving impasses in collective bargaining. In contrast, the provisions of HRS chapter 658A apply to situations in which the parties voluntarily agree to engage in arbitration. Thus, HRS chapter 658A is simply not applicable to this case, and it is not necessary to determine whether the HLRB's jurisdiction takes precedence over that of the circuit court.

Except as noted below, we otherwise agree with the ICA's analysis. Accordingly, the judgment of the ICA is affirmed.

I. Background

The following factual background is taken from the record on appeal.

A. Factual background

UPW is the exclusive representative for Unit 10 employees, who are "Institutional, health, and correctional workers[.]" HRS § 89–6 (2012). In 2008, UPW entered into negotiations with the State of Hawai‘i, the Hawai‘i Health Systems Corporation, the Judiciary, the City and County of Honolulu, County of Hawai‘i, County of Maui, and County of Kaua‘i (collectively, the "State") to renew and modify the Unit 10 CBA covering the period from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2011.

The parties could not reach agreement on the terms of the CBA. As a result, on February 2, 2009, the HLRB issued Order No. 2576, pursuant to HRS § 89–11(c)(2),³ declaring an impasse and appointing a mediator to assist the parties in resolving the dispute.

Because mediation was unsuccessful, and the parties still had not resolved the impasse, on March 3, 2009, UPW and the State entered into the following memorandum of agreement (MOA), setting forth an alternative impasse procedure pursuant to HRS § 89–11(a)⁴ :

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENTAlternate Impasse Procedure for Unit 10

This MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT is entered into this 3rd day of March 2009, by and between the United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646 AFL–CIO hereinafter the "Union," and the State of Hawaii, the Judiciary, the Hawaii Health Systems Corporation, and the City and County of Honolulu, hereinafter the "Employer."

Pursuant to subsection 89–11(a), Hawaii Revised Statutes; the Union and the Employer agree to the following alternate impasse procedure for the successor collective bargaining agreements, effective July 1, 2009, covering employees in bargaining unit 10.

1. February 1, 2009 —Impasse is declared by the Hawaii Labor Relations Board.

2. February 2, 2009 to June 22, 2009 —Mediation.

3. June 23, 2009 —HLRB notifies the parties that the impasse will be submitted to a 3–member arbitration panel. Two panel members are selected by the parties (i.e., one by the Employer and one by the Union). The neutral third member is the chair of the arbitration panel and is selected by mutual agreement of the parties.

4. July 6, 2009 —Deadline to select a neutral arbitrator. HLRB requests a list of arbitrators from AAA. In the event the parties fail to select the neutral third member of the panel by this date, HLRB will request a list of 5 qualified arbitrators from AAA. The neutral is selected from such list.

Selection & Appointment of Neutral Arbitrator is made within 5 working days after receipt of AAA list. The parties alternately strike names from the list until a single name is left. HLRB immediately appoints such person as the neutral arbitrator and chairperson of the arbitration panel. (Additional time is provided to allow AAA to submit the list of arbitrators.)

5. August 4, 2009 —Deadline for submission of written final positions by each party to the members of the arbitration panel and a copy to the other party.

6. September 11, 2009 —Commencement of arbitration hearing. (Panel members "are encouraged to assist the parties in a voluntary resolution of the impasse through mediation to the extent practicable throughout the entire arbitration period until the date the panel is required to issue its arbitration decision.")

7. October 12, 2009 —Receipt of transcripts by panel and parties.

8. November 12, 2009 —Receipt of closing briefs by panel members; and exchange by parties.

9. November 12, 2009 –Conclusion of the arbitration hearing. (About 6 to 7 working days are needed to complete the hearing. Transcripts, if requested, are usually made available 15 or more calendar days after the hearing ends. The arbitration panel usually allows the parties to submit post-hearing briefs within 30 calendar days after receipt of transcripts. Hence, the panel and the parties should have a clear understanding that the receipt date of the post-hearing briefs by the panel members shall be the conclusion of the arbitration hearing.)

10. December 11, 2009 —Issuance of the preliminary draft of the arbitration decision which is made within 30 days after the conclusion of the hearing. A

...