Opinion ID: 4540256
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: UPW’s complaint on behalf of Ah Sing

Text: On August 18, 2003, UPW filed a prohibited practices complaint with the HLRB, challenging the non-renewal of Ah Sing’s custodian position at Connections.5 In the complaint, UPW alleged that DOE and Connections (collectively, “Employer”) violated the collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) with UPW, and HRS Chapter 89, by terminating Ah Sing. Specifically, the complaint alleged the non-renewal of Ah Sing’s position (1) willfully violated various terms of the bargaining Unit 1 CBA in violation of HRS § 89-13(a)(8) (1993); and (2) constituted a willful refusal and failure to comply with the duty to bargain in good faith over mid-term changes in wages, hours of work, other terms and conditions of employment under HRS §§ 89-3 (Supp. 2000) and 89-9(a) (Supp. 2000),6 and the duty to recognize 5 HLRB Case No. CE-01-539. 6 HRS § 89-3 provides in relevant part: Rights of employees. [Section effective June 1, 2002. For present provision, see main volume.] Employees shall have the right of self-organization and the right to form, join, or assist any employee organization for the purpose of bargaining collectively through representatives of their own choosing on questions of wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, and to engage in lawful, concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining of other mutual aid or protection, free from interference, restraint, or coercion. (Bracketed material in original.) HRS § 89-9 provides in relevant part: (continued. . .) 7  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  UPW as the exclusive bargaining agent under § 89-8(a) (1993).7 UPW’s complaint also alleged Employer’s “willful refusal and failure to comply with the provisions of [HRS] chapter 89” constituted prohibited practices under HRS §§ 89-13(a)(1), (5), and (7).8 Ah Sing’s September 23, 2003 amended complaint added a (continued. . .) Scope of negotiations; consultation. [Section effective July 1, 2002. For section effective June 30, 2002, see aboe.] (a) The employer and the exclusive representative shall meet at reasonable times[] . . . and shall negotiate in good faith with respect to wages, hours . . . and other terms and conditions of employment which are subject to collective bargaining and which are to be embodied in a written agreement as specified in section 89-10, but such obligation does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or make a concession[.] (Bracketed material in original.) 7 HRS § 89-8 provides in relevant part: Recognition and representation; employee participation. (a) The employee organization which has been certified by the board as representing the majority of employees in an appropriate bargaining unit shall be the exclusive representatives of all employees in the unit. As exclusive representative, it shall have the right to act for and negotiate agreements covering all employees in the unit and shall be responsible for representing the interests of all such employees[.] 8 HRS § 89-13 provides in relevant part: Prohibited practices; evidence of bad faith. (a) It shall be a prohibited practice for a public employer or its designated representative wilfully to: (1) Interfere, restrain, or coerce any employee in the exercise of any right guaranteed in this chapter; . . . . (5) Refuse to bargain collectively in good faith with the exclusive representative as required in section 89-9; (continued. . .) 8  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  claim alleging violation of layoff rights under section 12 of the CBA. 2. The UPW complaint against the DOE and the UPW/DOE stipulation At the time Ah Sing’s HLRB complaint was filed, the status and rights of employees at public charter schools were the subject of various additional UPW filings before the HLRB.9 Before filing Ah Sing’s complaint, on July 3, 2003, UPW and the Hawaiʻi Government Employees Association (“HGEA”) filed a prohibited practice complaint with the HLRB on behalf of all employees in bargaining Units 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, against the then-Director of the DHRD and then-Governor of the State of Hawaiʻi, regarding the civil service status of public employees at charter schools (“UPW complaint”). The UPW complaint, which was later amended to add the DOE and the Board of Education (“BOE”), alleged that the DHRD’s position that charter school employees were not civil service employees and the DOE’s subsequent implementation of the DHRD directive violated the collective bargaining rights of affected charter school (continued. . .) . . . . (7) Refuse or fail to comply with any provision of this chapter; [or] (8) Violate the terms of a collective bargaining agreement[.] 9 HLRB Case Nos. CE-01-537a, CE-02-537b, CE-03-537c, and CE-04-537d. 9  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  employees. On July 3, 2003, UPW had obtained from the DOE’s Hawaiʻi Regional Office’s Personnel Regional Officer in Hilo a list of Big Island public charter school employees who might be impacted by the DHRD’s June 9, 2003 directive that public charter school employees were not civil service employees. The list provided to UPW by the DOE included Ah Sing. On March 15, 2004, UPW, the HGEA, the DOE, and the BOE entered into a stipulation and order in the UPW complaint (“UPW/DOE stipulation”). The UPW/DOE stipulation provided in relevant part as follows: 1. The UPW is an employee organization and the exclusive representative, as provided under HRS § 89-2, of employees in bargain unit 01, non-supervisory employees in blue collar positions. . . . . 4. The UPW [] and the State of Hawaii are at all times relevant herein part[y] to the collective bargaining agreement[] covering employees in bargaining unit 01 . . . . 5. Classified employees of the [DOE] covered by these collective bargaining agreements have historically and customarily been part of the “merit” or “civil service” system of the State of Hawaii. There are approximately 150 classified positions of DOE which are in public charter schools and covered by such civil service system. 6. The collective bargaining agreements contain provisions for the maintenance of prior rights of employees pursuant to civil service statutes and rules, and require negotiations before changes in conditions of work may be implemented. 7. On or about June 9, 2003 the Department of Human Resources Development (DHRD) informed Employer of its position (and policy) that employees of public charter schools in the DOE “do not have civil service 10  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  status” and are no longer part of the merit system. 8. On or about June 12, 2003 DHRD requested Employer to “convert all public charter school positions to reflect the fact that these positions do not have civil service status” by June 30, 2003, and thereafter informed Employer that DHRD would not provide “certified lists of eligible applicants” and “civil service appointments may not be made to fill public charter school positions.” 9. On and after July 8, 2003 the aforementioned DHRD position, policy, and actions were communicated to public charter school administrators and employees. 10. As a direct consequence various public charter school employees (in order to preserve and maintain their civil service status, rights and benefits), initiated transfers and other changes in their terms and conditions of work. 11. As a further consequence on or about July 1, 2003 and thereafter, DOE failed to process for hiring approximately fifteen (15) or more public charter school employees in classified positions through the statewide merit system for compliance with civil service requirements, and as a result these employees are currently exempt from civil service coverage. . . . . 14. Employer hereby stipulates and agrees to cease and desist from implementing the aforementioned DHRD position or policy regarding loss of civil service status for public charter school positions and employees, and to make whole all adversely [affected] employees (including but not limited to the restoration or return of said employees to their former public charter school positions without loss of rights, privileges, and benefits). 15. Within 30 days from the date of this Stipulation and Order Employer shall process all currently exempt public charter school employees in classified positions through the statewide merit system and restore them to civil service status. All classified positions in public charter schools shall be restored to the merit system within thirty days. 3. HLRB order granting UPW’s motion for summary judgment in Ah Sing’s case On March 16, 2004, UPW filed a motion for summary judgment in Ah Sing’s case before the HLRB, contending it was 11  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on the UPW/DOE stipulation because Ah Sing fell within the affected class of the UPW/DOE stipulation. In support of its motion, UPW attached: (1) a copy of the UPW/DOE stipulation; (2) Ah Sing’s declaration stating he was notified on June 27, 2003, that his civil service position was not being renewed; (3) a copy of Ah Sing’s separation notice from the DOE; and (4) the July 17, 2003 letter from Connections to Ah Sing stating Ah Sing’s position was being eliminated due to limited funding. In their memorandum in opposition, Employer argued that UPW failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that Ah Sing was adversely affected by the DHRD’s position that public charter school employees were not entitled to civil service status and were thus covered by the UPW/DOE stipulation. Employer contended UPW could not meet this burden because the school board decided on May 5, 2003, to not renew Ah Sing’s temporary appointment, which was before the DHRD announced its policy. In support of its memorandum, Employer attached a declaration from a DOE personnel specialist stating that “it is [her] understanding that the decision not to renew Mr. Ah Sing=s temporary appointment was based upon cost or funding concerns - not civil service status[] . . . [and] that the decision . . . was made on or about May 5, 2003.” The HLRB held a hearing on UPW’s motion on March 29, 2004, 12  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  where the parties presented their arguments. On June 8, 2007, the HLRB entered an order granting UPW’s motion for summary judgment. In its order, the HLRB stated Ah Sing’s employment status and treatment by the DOE and Connections were “hopelessly muddled[]” and that “[t]he record reflects at least six alternative representations[,]” but that it was unnecessary to sort through the “minutia of [Ah Sing’s] particular circumstance” because “Ah Sing was in all probability the victim of the confusion surrounding the employment rights and status of public charter school workers[.]” The HLRB concluded Ah Sing fell within the terms of the UPW/DOE stipulation and ordered his reinstatement.