 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hoopai v. Civil Service Commission12/21/2004
FOR PUBLICATION
LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA, ACOBA, AND DUFFY, JJ.; WITH MOON, C.J., CONCURRING SEPARATELY
We hold in this consolidated appeal in Civil No. 99-0-3248 and Special Proceeding No. 00-1-0090 (S.P. No. 00-1-90), (1) that the general prohibition in Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 89-9(d) (1993) against a public employer and the exclusive representative of a collective bargaining unit agreeing to a "proposal . . . inconsistent with merit principles" is subject to that statute's provisions allowing for, inter alia, negotiation of promotion and demotion procedures in a collective bargaining agreement and a grievance process for violation thereof, (2) that HRS § 76-1 (Supp. 1999), Revised Charter of Honolulu (RCH) §§ 6-302, 6-306, 6-308, and Rules of the Civil Service Commission (RCSC) §§ 13-2 and 13-3 do not conflict with HRS § 89-9(d), (3) that in the instant case, the grievance process initiated by Party-in-Interest-Appellant United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL-CIO (UPW) pursuant to its collective bargaining agreement with Appellee-Appellant City and County of Honolulu (the City) was proper, (4) that the dispute as to the "demotion" of Appellant-Appellee Jacob E. Hoopai (Hoopai) was properly processed under the collective bargaining agreement grievance procedure; and (5) Hoopai has failed to establish a violation of his due process claim.
Because on the foregoing premises the circuit court of the first circuit (the court) was wrong in ruling that Appellee-Appellant Civil Service Commission (the Commission) had jurisdiction of Hoopai's complaint involving his demotion, we vacate the court's October 25, 2000 judgment remanding the case to the Commission in Civil No. 99-3248 and the court's April 11, 2000 order denying without prejudice the UPW's motion to intervene in S.P. No. 00-1-90, and remand the case to the court with instructions to grant the UPW's motion and enter judgment for the Commission, the City, Appellees-Appellants Department of Civil Service of the City (the Department) and the Emergency Services Department of the City (ESD) [hereinafter collectively, Employers], and UPW.
Employers challenge the May 16, 2000 findings of fact (findings), conclusions of law (conclusions) and order of the court and appeal from the court's October 25, 2000 judgment in favor of Hoopai. UPW challenges the aforesaid May 16, 2000 findings, conclusions and order and appeals from (1) the April 11, 2000 order denying, without prejudice, UPW's motion to intervene and (2) the said October 25, 2000 judgment.
I.
A.
The facts in the present appeal ostensibly are not disputed. The pertinent facts are set forth in certain of the court's enumerated findings and the evidence adduced as follows.
1. [Hoopai] is an employee of Appellee [City], .
2. [Commission] is an agency of the [City], duly created under the and the applicable Civil Service laws of the State of Hawaii.
3. [City] is a body politic created under the provision of the RCH, the Constitution of the State of Hawaii and applicable provisions of the .
4. of the [City] is duly created under the RCH.
5. On or about June 16, 1995, [Hoopai] was promoted from the position of Mobile Emergency Care Specialist ("MECS I") to EMS Field Operations Supervisor ("FOS").
6. During the time he served as FOS, [Hoopai] received only "Excellent" evaluations.
7. [Hoopai] successfully completed his probationary period.
8. [Hoopai] was made permanent in his position on December 16, 1995.
9. After [Hoopai's] July 16, 1995 promotion, filed a grievance on behal
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Hawaii Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|