Opinion ID: 4540256
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: HLRB proceedings on remand

Text: On remand, in summary, in its July 9, 2014 Order No. 3005, the HLRB denied Employer’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, denied Employer’s alternative motion for summary judgment because the circuit court had overturned the HLRB’s grant of summary judgment in favor of UPW based on alleged genuine issues of material fact, and denied UPW’s motion to amend the Ah Sing complaint to add a claim for breach of the 15  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  UPW/DOE stipulation.10 The HLRB reasoned that, if Ah Sing was covered by the UPW/DOE stipulation, there was already an amended UPW/HGEA complaint against the DOE in Case No. CE-01-537a alleging a violation of the UPW/DOE stipulation and that, therefore, amending the Ah Sing complaint to add a claim against the DOE would result in two complaints for the same controversy, in violation of Hawaiʻi Administrative Rules (“HAR”) § 12-4242(f) (1981).11 The HLRB then conducted a hearing on the prohibited practices complaint on October 22, and 23, 2014, December 11, 2014, and May 21, 2015. On August 16, 2017, the HLRB entered Decision No. 491 with its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order dismissing Ah Sing’s complaint. The HLRB made numerous findings of facts and concluded: (1) Ah Sing was a bargaining Unit 1 member at the time that he was terminated and was required to exhaust his contractual remedies before filing the complaint;12 (2) Ah Sing was not covered by the UPW/DOE 10 The HLRB also denied UPW’s motion to amend to add claims for: (1) breach of the ninety-day layoff notice provision in the CBA; (2) breach of the HLRB’s oral ruling in Ah Sing’s case; and (3) attorney’s fees and costs; these denials were not appealed. 11 HAR § 12-42-42(f) states: “Only one complaint shall issue against a party with respect to a single controversy.” 12 The HLRB noted in Decision No. 491 that it had declined to dismiss the complaint based on Ah Sing=s alleged failure to exhaust remedies twice before: Notwithstanding these two prior rulings, following the hearing on the merits on remand, the Board exercises (continued. . .) 16  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  stipulation because (a) he was not employed by the DOE in March 2004 when the stipulation became effective; (b) Ah Sing’s limited term position was eliminated due to lack of funding and not the DHRD’s directive; and (c) the law of the case did not constrain the HLRB’s conclusion because its initial decision was vacated by the circuit court; (3) UPW failed to carry its burden of showing that the DOE contravened the duty to bargain in good faith in violation of HRS §§ 89-13(a)(1), (5), and (7); and (4) Connections willfully retaliated against Ah Sing by cancelling his rubbish hauling contract in violation of HRS § 89-13(a)(4), but that UPW failed to show that the retaliatory conduct violated HRS § 89-13(a)(1) by interfering with Ah Sing’s right to bargain collectively.13 (continued. . .) its discretion to reconsider this issue based on Hawaii federal precedent. . . . The Board concludes that the evidence on remand was “substantially different” on this issue because unlike the record at the time of the first and second motions to dismiss, the record on remand is undisputed that Ah Sing was a Unit 1 member. For this reason, the Board, in its discretion, reconsiders the exhaustion issue and agrees with [Employer] based on the record that because Ah Sing was a Unit 1 member at the time of his termination, he was required to file a grievance and exhaust[] his contractual remedies[.]” 13 HRS § 89-13 states in relevant part: (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[.] (continued. . .) 17  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER