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

Heading: First appeal to the circuit court

Text: Employer filed a notice of appeal to the circuit court on July 27, 2007. In its opening brief, Employer claimed the HLRB’s grant of summary judgment was improper because there were genuine issues of material fact. Employer argued the HLRB’s order itself acknowledged factual disputes. Employer also asserted Connections could not be found to have willfully engaged in a prohibited practice based on the entry of the UPW/DOE stipulation because Connections was not a party to the stipulation. Employer also claimed the HLRB exceeded its authority and jurisdiction by ordering Ah Sing’s reinstatement 13  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  to a position that no longer existed. The HLRB’s answering brief noted that, after hearing arguments, it had concluded there were no issues of material fact and that UPW was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Based on the circumstances surrounding Ah Sing’s termination, the HLRB maintained that “Ah Sing should have been reinstated to his position or a similar position as were other classified charter school employees by the [UPW/DOE stipulation]” and viewed Employer’s failure to do so as both violating the UPW/DOE stipulation and breaching the CBA. With respect to Respondent’s argument that the HLRB had exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering Ah Sing’s reinstatement, the HLRB noted its broad authority to fashion remedies for unfair or prohibited practices. The HLRB cited this court’s opinion in Del Monte Fresh Produce (Hawaii), Inc. v. International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 142, AFL-CIO, 112 Hawaiʻi 489, 508-10, 146 P.3d 1066, 1085-87 (2006), which held that the HLRB had not abused its discretion in fashioning a substantive remedy for laid-off employees. In Del Monte, this court noted that because the “legislature empowered the HLRB with discretion in ordering affirmative remedies” and because discretion is a flexible concept, only an arbitrary or capricious decision by the HLRB would be an abuse of discretion. 112 Hawaiʻi at 508-09, 146 P.3d at 1085-86. The HLRB requested that, absent a showing it had abused its discretion, the circuit 14  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  court affirm its remedial order. 2. Circuit court order vacating the HLRB’s order granting UPW’s motion for summary judgment After oral arguments, on December 3, 2008, the circuit court entered its decision and order vacating the HLRB's order granting UPW's motion for summary judgment in Civil No. 07-1- 314. The circuit court found the HLRB erroneously granted UPW’s motion for summary judgment because there were genuine issues of material fact as to: (1) whether Ah Sing was a member of bargaining Unit 1 at the time of his termination; and (2) whether Ah Sing was intended to be in the class of workers covered by the UPW/DOE stipulation. The circuit court thus vacated the HLRB’s order granting UPW’s motion for summary judgment.