United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL-CIO v. Yogi

• Decision Date: 06 December 2002
• Docket Number: No. 23705.,23705.
• Parties: UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS, AFSCME, LOCAL 646, AFL-CIO; Hawai`i Government Employees Association, AFSCME, Local 152, AFL-CIO; Hawai`i State Teachers Association; and Hawai`i Fire Fighters Association, Local 1463, International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO, Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. Davis YOGI, Chief Negotiator, State of Hawai`i; Benjamin Cayetano, Governor, State of Hawai`i; The Board of Education; Maryanne Kusaka, Mayor, County of Kaua`i; Stephen Yamashiro, Mayor, County of Hawai`i, Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, and Jeremy Harris, Mayor, City and County of Honolulu; James Apana, Mayor, County of Maui; and The Board of Regents of The University of Hawai`i, Defendants/Cross-Appellees.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

62 P.3d 189

101 Haw. 46

UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS, AFSCME, LOCAL 646, AFL-CIO; Hawai`i Government Employees Association, AFSCME, Local 152, AFL-CIO; Hawai`i State Teachers Association; and Hawai`i Fire Fighters Association, Local 1463, International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO, Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. Davis YOGI, Chief Negotiator, State of Hawai`i; Benjamin Cayetano, Governor, State of Hawai`i; The Board of Education; Maryanne Kusaka, Mayor, County of Kaua`i; Stephen Yamashiro, Mayor, County of Hawai`i, Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, and Jeremy Harris, Mayor, City and County of Honolulu; James Apana, Mayor, County of Maui; and The Board of Regents of The University of Hawai`i, Defendants/Cross-Appellees.

No. 23705.

Supreme Court of Hawai`i.

December 6, 2002.

Herbert R. Takahashi (Rebecca L. Covert, Honolulu, with him on the briefs), of Takahashi, Masui & Vasconcellos, for plaintiffs-appellees/cross-appellants.

Gary Hynds, Deputy Attorney General, (Kathleen A. Watanabe, with him on the briefs), for defendants-appellants/cross-appellees Davis Yogi, Benjamin Cayetano, and The Board of Education.

Ted H.S. Hong, Deputy Corporation Counsel, (Margaret Hanson, with him on the briefs) for defendants-appellants/cross-appellees Stephen Yamashiro and Maryanne Kusaka.

Steven Christensen, Deputy Corporation Counsel, on the brief, for defendant-appellant/cross-appellee Stephen Yamashiro. Opinion by RAMIL, J., in which ACOBA, J. Joins, Announcing the Decision of the Court.

Defendants-appellants/cross-appellees Davis Yogi, Chief Negotiator, State of Hawai`i; Benjamin Cayetano, Governor, State of Hawai`i; The Board of Education; Maryanne Kusaka, Mayor, County of Kauai; Stephen Yamashiro, Mayor County of Hawai`i; Jeremy Harris, Mayor, City and County of Honolulu; James Apana, Mayor, County of Maui; and the Board of Regents of the University of Hawai`i [hereinafter, collectively, Defendants],¹ appeal from the August 4, 2000 judgment and order of the first circuit court² in favor of plaintiffs-appellees/cross-appellants public employee unions [hereinafter, collectively, Plaintiffs].³ The judgment and order declared unconstitutional Section 2 of Act 100, see 1999 Haw. Sess. L. Act 100, § 2, at 368-69, which prohibits public employers and public employee unions from collectively bargaining over cost items for the biennium 1999 to 2001 and permanently enjoined Defendants from enforcing it. Plaintiffs cross-appeal from those portions of the court's order dismissing their alternative grounds for relief.⁴

The main issue before us is whether Section 2 violates article XIII, section 2 of our state constitution.⁵ We hold that it does. Accordingly, we focus our analysis on Plaintiffs' collective bargaining rights. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

During the 1999 legislative session, the Hawai`i State Legislature enacted Act 100. See 1999 Haw. Sess. L. Act 100, at 368-70. Section 2 of Act 100 amended Hawai`i Revised Statutes ("HRS") § 89-9(a) by adding the language underscored:

§ 89-9 Scope of negotiations.

[Section effective until June 30, 2002. . . . ](a) The employer and the exclusive representative shall meet at reasonable times, including meetings in advance of the employer's budget-making process, and shall negotiate in good faith with respect to wages, hours, the number of incremental and longevity steps and movement between steps within the salary range, the amounts of contributions by the State and respective counties to the Hawai`i public employees health fund to the extent allowed in subsection (e), and other terms and conditions of employment which are subject to negotiations under this chapter and which are to be embodied in a written agreement, or any question arising thereunder, but such obligation does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or make a concession; provided that the parties may not negotiate with respect to cost items as defined by section 89-2 for the biennium 1999 to 2001, and the cost items of employees in bargaining units under section 89-6 in effect on June 30, 1999, shall remain in effect until July 1, 2001.

HRS § 89-9(a) (2001) (underscoring added). "Cost items" include "wages, hours, amounts of contributions by the State and Counties to the Hawai`i public employees health fund, and other terms and conditions of employment, the implementation of which requires an appropriation by a legislative body." HRS § 89-2 (1993). In essence, Section 2 of Act 100 prohibited public employers and public employees' unions from collectively bargaining over cost items for the biennium 1999 to 2001.

On October 11, 1999, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants, alleging, inter alia, that, Section 2 violated their "right to organize for the purpose of collective bargaining" as provided by article XIII, section 2 of the Hawai`i Constitution. The complaint sought injunctive and declaratory relief.

A non-jury trial was held on January 4, 6, and 7, 2000 on the consolidated motion for preliminary injunction and trial on the merits. Plaintiffs did not request damages at trial. Plaintiffs moved for costs on March 17, 2000.

On August 4, 2000, the trial court issued its findings of fact, conclusions of law, orders, and judgment, ruling that Section 2 violated Plaintiffs' state constitutional right to collectively bargain and issued a permanent injunction against its enforcement.⁶ On August 29 through September 1, 2000, Defendants filed notices of appeal. On September 1, 2000, Plaintiffs filed a notice of cross-appeal. On September 5, 2000, the court awarded Plaintiffs costs of $6,044.60.

Defendant Yogi submits that the court committed reversible error in declaring Section 2 unconstitutional and in issuing an injunction against the enforcement of the Act. Yogi contends that article XIII, section 2 "recognize[s] a constitutional right to organize for the purpose of collective bargaining" but "does not create a right to collectively bargain." Yogi maintains that, by inserting the phrase as "provided by law", the framers intended for the legislature to retain the ultimate authority to govern the parameters of collective bargaining. According to Yogi, committee reports of the constitutional convention indicate the drafters's intent "to give complete discretion to the legislature to define the terms of collective bargaining for public employees." Yogi lists "numerous amendments" to HRS § 89-9 to show "[t]he legislature's power to control the scope of collective bargaining." Yogi concludes that "if the legislature had the power to grant public employees the right to collectively bargain over cost items, the legislation had the authority to suspend that right."

Defendants Kusaka and Yamashiro argue that (1) the legislature intended Section 2 to serve an important public interest; (2) HRS chapter 89 exhibits examples of the legislature's discretion to limit the right to bargain collectively; and (3) Plaintiffs suffered no irreparable injury.⁷

Plaintiffs assert that (1) the words "collective bargaining as provided by law" in article XIII, section 2 had "a well-recognized meaning in pre-existing federal and state statutes[] and five state constitutions" by 1968, and the term "law" referred "not just to statutory `law,' but also to constitutional and case `law' which gave substance and meaning to the words `collective bargaining"; (2) "the object of the 1968 amendment was to extend to public employees rights enjoyed by private employees"; and (3) their position is supported by the legislative history of HRS chapter 89, "contemporary `understanding'" of the meaning of "collective bargaining as provided by law," and case law from other states.

II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

A. Constitutional Construction

We review questions of constitutional law de novo, under the right/wrong standard. Bank of Hawai`i v. Kunimoto, 91 Hawai`i 372, 387, 984 P.2d 1198, 1213, recon. denied, 91 Hawai`i 372, 984 P.2d 1198 (1999). "We answer questions of constitutional law by exercising our own independent judgment based on the facts of the case." State v. Jenkins, 93 Hawai`i 87, 100, 997 P.2d 13, 26 (2000).

In interpreting a constitutional provision, "the words of the constitution are presumed to be used in their natural sense . . . `unless the context furnishes some ground to control, qualify or enlarge (them).'" State ex rel. Amemiya v. Anderson, 56 Haw. 566, 577, 545 P.2d 1175, 1182 (1976) (citation omitted).

"We have long recognized that the Hawai`i Constitution must be construed with due regard to the intent of the framers and the people adopting it, and the fundamental principle in interpreting a constitutional provision is to give effect to that intent." Convention Center Auth. v. Anzai, 78 Hawai`i 157, 167, 890 P.2d 1197, 1207 (1995). "This intent is to be found in the instrument itself. When the text of a constitutional provision is not ambiguous, the court, in construing it, is not at liberty to search for its meaning beyond the instrument." State v. Kahlbaun, 64 Haw. 197, 201, 638 P.2d 309, 314,recon. denied,64 Haw. 197,638 P.2d 309 (1981) (citations omitted).

B. Statutory Interpretation

"The constitutionality of a statute is a question of law which is reviewable under the right/wrong standard . . . . [T]his court has consistently held that every enactment of the legislature is presumptively constitutional, and a party challenging the statute has the burden of showing unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt. The infraction should be plain, clear, manifest and unmistakable." State v. Bates, 84 Hawai`i 211, 220, 933 P.2d 48, 57 (1997).

III. DISCUSSION

"In the construction of a constitutional provision, the rule is well established that the words of the constitution are presumed to be used in their natural sense." Employees' Ret. Sys. v. Budget Dir. Ho, 44 Haw. 154, 159, 352 P.2d 861, 864-65 (1960). The words "as provided by law" do not appear to be ambiguous and therefore are presumed to...