Case Title: United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL-CIO v. Shimizu

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2005-04-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
LAW LIBRARY

* NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

 

NO. 26268

  

|

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STAT

oats

oi a1: El
UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS, AFSCME, LOCAL 646, AFL-CIO,
Complainant Appellant -Appellee,

KENNETH A. SHIMIZU, Deputy Director, Department of

Environmental Services, City and County of Honolulu;

ERIC TAKAMURA, Director, Department of Environmental
Services, City and County of Honolulu; KENNETH

NAKAMATSU, Director, Department of Hunan Resources,
City and County of Honolulu; and MUFI HANNEMAN,
Mayor, City and County of Honolulu,?
Respondents Appellees-Appellants,

and
HAWAII LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, BRIAN K. NAKAMURA,

Chairperson; CHESTER C. KUNITAKE, Board Member; and
KATHLEEN RACUYA-MARKRICH, Board Member, Appellees-Appellees.

  

UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS, AFSCME, LOCAL 646, AFL-CIO,
Complainant ‘Appellant -Appellee,

KENNETH A. SHIMIZU, Deputy Director, Department of

Environmental Services, City and County of Honolulu;

ERIC TAKAMURA, Director, Department of Environmental
Services, City and County of Honolulu; KENNETH

NAKAMATSU, Director, Department of Human Resources,
City and County of Honolulu; and MUFI HANNEMAN,

Mayor, City and County of Honolulu,*
Respondents Appellees-Appellants,

(2008),

Pursuant to Hawai'i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 43(c)
Kenneth Nakanateu, and Miti Hanneman were

Kenneth &. Shimizu, Erie Takemura,
substituted as parties to the instant appeal

* see gupra nove 1

 
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

 

and

HAWAII LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, BRIAN K, NAKAMURA,
Chairperson; CHESTER C. KUNITAKE, Board Member; and
KATHLEEN RACUYA-NARKRICH, Board Menber, Appellees-Appellees.

 

 

APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT
(CIV. NOS. 03-21-0546 & 03-1-0552)

‘SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER AND ORDER DENYING
7
(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.)
Appellants Kenneth A. Shimizu, Deputy Director,

Department of Environmental Services, City and County of
Honolulu; Eric Takamura, Director, Department of Environmental
Services, City and County of Honolulu; Kenneth Nakamatsu,
Director, Department of Human Services, City and County of
Honolulu; and Mufi Hanneman, Mayor, City and County of Honolulu
Inereinafter, collectively, the City] appeals from the Septenber
22, 2003 judgment of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, the
Honorable Sabrina $. NcKenna presiding, reversing in part and
affirming in part Decision No. 440 of the Hawai'i Labor Relations
Board [hereinafter, HLRB or the Board]. On appeal, the City
argues that the circuit court erred in: (1) finding that
Decision No. 440 ruled that the City had committed a prohibited
practice; (2) overturning or otherwise modifying the HLRB’s
findings of fact regarding evidence of frustration of purpose;
and (3) ruling that the frustration of purpose doctrine applied
by the HLRB was erroneous and contrary to the manifest purpose of

Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) chapter 89, Additionally, after
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

SS

briefing was complete in the instant case, appellee United Public
Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL-CIO {hereinafter, UPW or the
Union] moved for retention of oral argument in the instant case
Upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to
the issues raised and the arguments presented we hold as follows:
Notwithstanding the circuit court's ruling that the
City was bound to “restore collection services for the city which
had been privatized and to expand services to businesses,
condominiums, and churches and compete with private haulers to
contract services for military bases and public schools," the
unchallenged language of Decision No. 440 bound the City to the
same contractual obligations when this court reversed the HLRB‘s
prior decision in United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL-
S10, v, Hanneman, 106 Hawai'i 359, 362-63, 105 P.3d 236, 239-40

(2005). Thus, in the instant case, “[the] result will not be
affected by the question[s] . . . raised on this appeal,
whichever way [they are] decided. In this eituation, any

consideration of the question will be academic. A question which

has become academic is moot. In re Kuwaye Bros., Inc., 50 Haw.
172, 274, 435 P.2d 21, 22-23 (1965); see also Ford Motor co, vz
. es , 305 U.S. 364, 375 (1939) (“Zt is

elementary that the court is not bound to determine questions
which have become academic."}. Therefore, this court lacks

jurisdiction to decide the merits of the instant case. Hong v.
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

Regents, Univ, of Hawai'i, 62 Haw, 391, 394-95, 616 P.2d

 

201, 203-04 (1980).

vPi's arguments for retention of oral argument are
based upon its perception of the complexity of and public
interest in the issues raised in the instant appeal. Because
this court lacks jurisdiction to address such issues, UPW's
argumenta aze inapposite. Accordingly,

IT 1S HEREBY ORDERED that UPW’s motion to retain oral
argument is denied, and the instant appeal 1s dismissed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, April 4, 2005.

on the briefs: Giger

Herbert R. Takahashi (of

‘Takahashi, Nasui, Vasconcellos Lire Gpfilocravo—

E covert), for appellant
appellee-appellee Peeseest O97 pecan 07
seth

Harris and x
Paul ©. Teukyena,
Deputies Corporation Counsel, Panne. ange he

for respondents appellees-
appellants