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

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2007-05-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
LAW LIBRARY

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *

no. 26568

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I 5

IN THE MATTER OF

UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS, AFSCME, LOCAL 646, AF!
Complainant ~Appellant~Appellant,

  

KENNETH A. SHIMIZU, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
‘SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU; ERIC TAKAMURA, DIRECTOR,
DEPARTWENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF
HONOLULU; KENNETH NAKAMATSU, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN
RESOURCES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU; AND NUFI HANNEMANN,
MAYOR, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU’,

Respondent s~Appellees~Appellees,

and

HAWAII LABOR RELATIONS BOARD: BRIAN NAKAMURA, CHAIRPERSON, ENORY
SPRINGER, BOARD MEMBER, AND SARAH HIRAKAMI, BOARD MEMBER,
Appellees-Appellees.

(crv. No. 03-1-0546)

 

IN THE MATTER OF

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

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 HANNEMANN,
MAYOR, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU,

Respondent s-Appellees-Appellees,

and

 

Porsuant to Nawas"t Rules of Appellate Procedure (*HRAP") Rule
43(c} (2000), Renneth A, Shimizu, Eric Takamura, Kenneth Nekanateu, and Mofi
Hannensnn nave been substitutes as parties to the instant appeal in place of
Frank 3. Doyle, Timothy £, Steinberger, Cheryl Okuna-Sepe, and Jereny Harris,
Fespectively (in thelr official copacities); algo, nominal appellees Brory
Egeinger snd Saran Hirekani have been substituted in place of chester Kuniteke
and Kathleen Rakuya-Markrich, respectively.

 

 
 

+ NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER,

HAWAII LABOR RELATIONS BOARD; BRIAN NAKAMURA, CHAIRPERSON, EMORY
SPRINGER, BOARD MEMBER, AND SARAH HIRAKAMI, BOARD MEMBER,
‘Appellees-Appellees.

(CIV. NO. 03-1-0552)

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

‘SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(py: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, Jd.)

Complainant-Appellant-Appellant United Public Workers,
AFSCHE, Local 646, AFL-CIO (hereinafter “UPW") appeals from the
Circuit Court of the First Circuit's order,? filed May 6, 2004,
denying its motion for order to show cause and for contempt

otion for contempt sanctions”) against the above-

 

(hereinafter *
named Respondents-Appellees-Appellees (collectively the City and
county of Honolulu, hereinafter “City”). The circuit court’s
order was filed on the same day that this court filed an order
granting a stay pending appeal in favor of the City as to the
exact seme subject matter. At issue was the City’s alleged
noncompliance with an order fron the circuit court which ordered
the City to take certain affirmative good faith actions towards
meeting its employment obligations to UPW and the unionized
refuse collection workers whom it represented arising from the
automation of the City’s refuse collection system.

on appeal, UPW makes the following assertions: (1)
there is no dispute that the City had failed to comply with the

‘The lionoreble Sabrina S, McKenna presided.

2
“+++ NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAU REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
circuit court’s September 17, 2003 findings of fact, conclusions
of law and order (“compliance order”) requiring the City to begin
good faith restoration and expansion of municipal refuse
collection services; (2) the City’s appeal in United Public
Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL-CIO v. Shimizu, No. 26168 (April
4, 2005) (hereinafter “URW v. Shimizu”) and then-pending motion
for stay before this court had no impact upon the City’s
affirmative duty to comply with the circuit court's order,
inasmuch as an unstayed order is fully enforceable pending
appeal; and (3) the City had no right to an “automatic stay” from
that order; and that because the City’s motion for stay before
the circuit court was denied, not appealed, and therefore final,
the circuit court, pursuant to the “law of the case” doctrine,
“had no authority to deny (UPW’s] motion for contempt” as @ means
of revisiting the issue of whether the City was entitled to such
an automatic stay.

upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we hold as follows:

(1) The instant appeal is moot. On May 6, 2004, this

 

court filed its order granting a stay fron enforcement of the
circuit court’s September 17, 2003 compliance order (pending

appeal in UP y, Shimizu (decided on April 4, 2005)) ~~ the sane
day as the circuit court filed its order denying UPH’s motion for

contempt sanctions. This court’s order was filed before the
   

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REFORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
cdxcuit court's own order on that day. Therefore, even if the
edrcuit court had ruled in favor of UPW and granted contempt
sanctions, its ruling, by virtue of being filed “second in tine,”
would be inmediately superceded and invalidated by this court's
grant of a stay to the City, inasmuch as the circuit court would
have to yield to this court’s superior jurisdiction in the face
of its unequivocal pronouncement that the status quo shall be
maintained until URW v. Shimizu was decided. As the City
correctly points out, “[hlad the [circuit] court agreed with the
UPW’s position and forced compliance, it would have destroyed the
‘status quo,’ which is the very purpose of pursuing a motion for
stoy.”

Given the timing of this court's and the circuit
court’s rulings, no live controversy remains, because this
court's May 6, 2004 order granting of the City’s motion for stay
precludes the awarding of contempt sanctions in UPW’s favor even
Af this court were to reverse the circuit court’s denial of UPW's
notion. And it is well-settled that “merely abstract or moot
questions will not be determined on appeal . . . .” AIG Hawai's

nevrance Co., Inc. v. Batenan, 82 Hawai'i 453, 459, 923 P.2d
395, 401 (1996) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks
omitted). Thus, the only remaining question is whether an
exception to the mootness doctrine is applicable. As UPH
correctly notes, “[this court has) repeatedly recognized an

exception to the mootness doctrine in cases involving questions
+++ NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

that affect the public interest and are ‘capable of repetition
yet evading review.'” See In re Doe Children, 105 Hawai'i 38,
56-57, 93 P.3d 1145, 1163-64 (2004) (emphases added) (citations

omitted).

‘The phrase, “capable of repetition, yet evading review,” means
that's court will not dianiss » case on the grounds of mootness

‘Chaluengee governmental action would evade full review
the pessage of tine would prevent any single plaintift
fron fenaising subject to the restriction complained of for the
period necessary to complete the lawsuit,

 

   

 

Idk at 57, 93 P.3d at 1164 (citations omitted) (some internal
quotation marks omitted). UPW asserts that “[d]isputes over
whether services in the public sector may be privatized or should
be restored to civil servants is ‘capable of repetition’ and
Likely to evade review.” (Citation omitted.) This generalized
argunent, however, fails to demonstrate how the complained-of
action in the instant case (noncompliance with the circuit
court's order to begin goed faith restoration and expansion of

the City’s refuse collection services) will escape review. In

 

fact, said action has already been subject to full review in UP
ws Shimieu.? Because no exception to the moctness doctrine has

been shown or is otherwise apparent, the instant appeal is

 

>the DEH y, Shinigu summary disposition order states in pertinent
part:

 

Notwithstanding the circuit court's ruling that the City was bound
to "restore collection services for the city which had Deen
privatizes 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
the HAB's February 11, 2003 decision, bound the City to the same
Echeractual obligations when this court reversed the NLAB's prior
Gecision in United Eublic Workers, AESCWE, Local G26, AFLACIO, v
Msnnenan, 106 Nawel'i 359, 362-63, 105 P, a 236, 238-40 (2005)

 

 

 

5
 

{14+ NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *
dismissed as moot. Therefore,

IP 18 HEREBY ORDERED that the instant appeal is
dismissed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, May 18, 2007.

on the brief

 

Herbert R. Takahashi,
(Of Counsel for Masui, Gorn
Vasconcelos and Covert,

Attorneys at Law) for

Complainant “Appellant Appellant Mca Rlbarise

Corporation Counsel for

Respondent s~Appellees~Appellees o} ae

Yon 0-86: