Opinion ID: 2574374
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: exhaustion of remedies under a CBA

Text: Aona is correct that when parties are bound by the terms of a CBA, we have repeatedly identified a policy interest in requiring employees to exhaust their contractual remedies before bringing judicial claims against an employer: It is well-settled that an employee must exhaust any grievance or arbitration procedures provided under a collective bargaining agreement before bringing a court action pursuant to the agreement. Strong policy considerations support this rule. The exhaustion requirement, first, preserves the integrity and autonomy of the collective bargaining process, allowing the parties to develop their own uniform mechanism of dispute resolution. It also promotes judicial efficiency by encouraging the orderly and less time-consuming settlement of disputes through alternative means. Hokama v. University of Hawai`i, 92 Hawai`i 268, 272, 990 P.2d 1150, 1154 (1999) (footnote omitted) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added). Indeed, where the terms of public employment are covered by a collective bargaining agreement pursuant to HRS Chapter 89 and the agreement includes a grievance procedure to dispose of employee grievances against the public employer, an aggrieved employee is bound by the terms of the agreement. Winslow v. State, 2 Haw. App. 50, 55, 625 P.2d 1046, 1050 (1981). Applying the exhaustion doctrine to the terms of a CBA is in keeping with prevailing National Labor Relations policy and Hawaii policy favoring arbitration as a dispute settlement mechanism. Santos v. State, Dept. of Transp., Kauai Div., 64 Haw. 648, 655, 646 P.2d 962, 967 (1982) (per curiam). However, [g]rievance procedure is not to be resorted to with respect to matters not included within its scope in the collective bargaining agreement. 51A C.J.S. Grievances § 340 (2003) (citations omitted).