Court Opinion

ID: 9549134
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:13:48.04902+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:19:53.312305
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION BY
MIZUHA, J.
Appellant at most failed to provide a satisfactory answer in this case, but did provide an answer in writing which took the form of a grievance appeal. This is not, in my opinion, insubordination as a matter of law.
Hoopii v. Sinclair, 40 Haw. 452 is not in point. The employee disobeyed a direct order to discontinue collecting refuse as an employee of a private garbage collector who did not have a legal collection permit. Likewise MacMillan v. Morgenthau, 146 Misc. 588, 263 N.Y. Supp. 568, has to do with insufficient explanation of disobedience to direct orders. “The employee was given an opportunity to answer the charges. His answer, covering eight typewritten pages was found by the commission to be an insufficient explanation of his disobedience to departmental orders.” MacMillan v. Morgenthau, supra, at 570.
I do not disagree with Garvin v. Chambers, 195 Cal. 212, 232 Pac. 696, where the court stated: “Insubordina*288tion can be rightfully predicated only on a refusal to obey some order which a superior officer is entitled to give and entitled to have obeyed.” But that is not the case here. Appellant did give what he believed to be an answer, which the water board manager construed as an unsatisfactory answer.
Department heads may now demote, suspend, or dismiss employees without the necessity of a review by the Civil Service Commission as to whether or not the facts are sufficient to support a finding that the answer is an inadequate and unsatisfactory one.
This conclusion will result in chaos in personnel relationships in our state and county civil service systems.