TANIGAWA, Hawaii; Hawaii; Services, LINDA of County County County Director UNITED YAMASHIRO, LOCAL TANIGAWA, Hawaii; LINDA Hawaii; County UNITED In Services, YAMASHIRO, LOCAL of County County Director
In
Personnel the
Personnel
the
CROCKETT
CROCKETT 646, 646,
Matter
of PUBLIC of Matter of of PUBLIC of of
MICHAEL MARYANNE
MICHAEL MARYANNE
of
of
Maui; Maui; Kauai County Director Maui; Maui; Kauai Director County and and
Mayor,
AFL—CIO, Mayor, AFL-CIO,
Personnel
Personnel
Services,
Services,
WORKERS, WORKERS,
of
of
Respondents. LINGLE,
Respondents. Complainant, LINGLE,
Complainant,
R. RAYMOND
and R. STEPHEN RAYMOND
and STEPHEN
KUSAKA, of
KUSAXA, of
County
County
HAWAII
of BEN,
BEN,
of
Kauai, ALLAN
Kauai, ALLAN
Personnel
Personnel Services,
Services,
Mayor,
County Mayor, AFSCME, AFSCME,
County
KOKUBUN,
Director
KOKUBUN, Director
Mayor,
of Mayor,
of
STATE
LABOR
of
of
OF
RELATIONS
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
)
HAWAII
CASE TO DENYING ORDER OF PRACTICE ORDER
CASE FOR
DISMISS
HEARING
BOARD
SUNMARY
NO.
NO.
NO. DENYING
RESPONDENTS’
C
CE—l0—325
COMPLAINTS
CE—O1—324
COMPLAINTS;
1404
ON
JUDGMENT
PROHIBITED UPW’S
NOTIONS
NOTION
AND
NOTICE
C HRS. Agreement refusing judgment The MICHAEL MARIANNE Statutes respectively. TANIGAWA, signed execute RAYMOND Substance Respondents WORXERS, the STEPHEN negotiated contends (collectively (collectively UPW various The by NOTICE ORDER DENYING R. KOKUBUN, charges the to AFSCME, (HRS), UPW the YAMASHIRO, that KUSAKA, On Testing In contending on agreements BEN, Director execute LINDA mayors agreements December DENYING contends spokespersons Employers), these OF MAUI Commercial The RESPONDENTS’ on thereby Director that HEARING Director LOCAL CROCKETT (MOA), UPW Mayor,
C and the or County) consolidated UPW’S of thereafter 13, regarding that Mayor, asserts instant County that about 646, violating in of covering ON reached Personnel 1996, Motor of County LINGLE, there representing MOTION violation Personnel PROHIBITED MOTIONS AFL-CIO committed Personnel, Respondents October personnel that agreements County the alcohol 2 Respondents are Vehicle agreements the § complaints, FOR Mayor, of the UPW 89—13(a) TO no Services, (UPW of members Services, SUMMARY Kauai 15, PRACTICE DISMISS respective a genuine filed and the of County directors § Alcohol County in prohibited or 89—10, Union drug LINGLE entitled 1996, (7), violation Hawaii failed Union) a (KUSAKA), of JUDGMENT
C the motion of COMPLAINTS; issues County County COMPLAINTS of testing. HRS. Units and Maui refused agreements and the Hawaii Maui UNITED or contends Memorandum and Respondents. practice (YAMASHIRO), of for of refused Controlled of 01 AND Union (KOKUBUN), of and (LINGLE), material § KOKUBUN Revised summary Hawaii, and to The 89—10, PUBLIC Kauai were ALAN that sign UPw and 10, to by of C C fact presented in this case and that summary judgment should be granted in its favor. Based upon a review of the record, the Board makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The UPW is the exclusive bargaining representative, as defined in § 89—2, FIRS, of employees included in bargaining units 01 and 10. LINDA CROCKETT LINGLE is the Mayor of the County of Maui and a public employer as defined in § 89—2, HRS.
RAYMOND KOKUBUN is the Director of Personnel, County of Maui and a representative of a public employer as defined in
§ 89—2, HRS. STEPHEN YAMASHIRO is the Mayor of the County of Hawaii and a public employer as defined in § 89—2, FIRS. MICHAEL R. BEN is the Director of Personnel Services, County of Hawaii and a representative of a public employer as defined in § 89-2, FIRS.
MARYANNE KUSAKA is the Mayor of the County of Kauai and a public employer as defined in § 89—2, FIRS.
ALLAN TANIGAWA is the Director of Personnel Services for the County of Kauai and representative of a public employer as defined in § 89—2, HRS. After negotiating over the implementation of the U.S. Department of Transportation Rules pertaining to drug and alcohol testing of employees occupying safety sensitive positions,
Manabu Kimura, the spokesperson for the Employer group, and Gary W. Rodrigues, UPW’s State Director and negotiator, reached an
3 MOAs. behalf positions.
alcohol terms agreements promptly. November agreements memoranda sign after § County Collective into counties document. blank effective behalf agreement
agreement
89-10,
the
multi-employer
of
the with
MAUI
of
of
of
testing
a
agreements.
HRS,
13,
were
date
MAUI
the The The Thereafter, on regarding
instant
the
on
Honolulu,
uniform
The
the
at between
County
MAUI
Bargaining
behalf
196.
October
Union.
parties
by Governor,
issue
after
UPW
reluctant
UPW
understanding
County
for
County
refusing
complaints
submits,
agreement
0 filed
the
contends
of
Units
the
all
bargaining
and
Mayors
KUSAXA,
However,
15,
the stipulated
the
does
that
admits
Employers
effective
of
State
further,
the
to
01
1996.
State
to
the
however, Union
Jeremy
not
some
sign
were and applicable
that
instant
that and
sign
that
according
employer of
4
and
of
dispute
10
was
that
Kimura
YAMASHIRO
that Hawaii date filed. the
and
the
of
Harris,
it
the LINGLE
Hawaii
that
employees
agreeing
complaints
the
is parties
informed
the
MOAs
LINGLE
of
LINGLE
representatives
agreements
to
to
Kimura
bound
on
signed
that
the
mayors
and
UPW
all
Mayor
and
the
or
signed
October
to
in would
agreements
has
Rodrigues
does
by
C
Employers. there
over
Union,
signed by
refused
with
KOKUBUN
the
be
safety
the
of
of
not
after
the
not
the
negotiate
the bound
15, the
memoranda
the
terms
the are
the
§
signed
signed
Office
intend
memoranda
sensitive
to
signed
20
drug
1996 City
violated
entering
Board
was
binding
various
MOAs
to
of
of
do
left
and the and the
the
and
the the the
to on
on of
so on
of there the agreement
agreement resolved MAUI represented bargaining votes, there spokesperson signed Employer and drug issue specific The UPW’s binding Employer authorized
County that 10.
nonmoving
alcohol
counties
County
and
Kimura
The
proposal
are
outstanding
are
when
thus
the
because
alcohol
in
group,
votes
effective
Board
After
with became
Based
binding
to
agreement.
outstanding
testing Jeremy
further
order
which
contends
was
agreement,
of
party,
would
bind
at
the
reviewing
is
upon
agrees
the
the
under
not policy
effective
to
that
bound
agreements C Harris,
as
necessary the
Union
for
asserts
date
then
the Employer
spokesperson
authorized resolve
that a
to
§
review time. counties.
safety
with
Thus
and
issues
Board
all
a
89—6(b),
the
vote
on
in
the
when
Mayor
at majority
that
present
the of
MAUI
the
as
the
record to
group scope at
that According
of further sensitive
on
Kimura
the
of
5 the
to
of the
this EmplQyer’s
enter
the
instant
agreement,
was
the
HRS, County
the
time.
material
vote
the
to Employers.
of
counties
in
Governor
vote
record,
authorized
juncture
agrees
signed tentative
City negotiate
the
Kimura’s
into
only
agreement
positions
to
on
complaints.
that
of
light
the
and
behalf.
the
a
a
with
it had
fact the the
is
C
the
the
simple binding
regarding
practice
County
Further,
counties’
appears
most
authority
agreement.
not entitled
to
a
MOAs,
Board
to
MAUI
for
which
agreements
multi—employer
Employers
negotiate
the
agreed
In
favorable
Units
majority
There
County of
collective
he
finds
addition,
counties. among
that
the
absent
Honolulu
must
to
was
behalf.
as
01 to
is
that
MAUI drug four that
was
the
the and are
the
the the not
to
be an
of
a employees. presented signatures documents and UPW. mayors agreement. should dismiss responds TANIGAWA the UPW’s to spokesperson’s there evidence obliged effective there effective issues
Respondents’
BEN
basis
are
motion
is
Accordingly,
be
to
executed
and
the
to
filed
an in
that
dismissed
genuine
be
date
with With
After
when Respondents
date.
that
are
execute
Respondents
the
issue
complaint
determined
for
Respondents
the
respect
motions unnecessary
of
authority
it.
they
record
the
the
refusal
reviewing
summary
issues the
Eased
as
C
cases
the
because
the
Unit
were
complaints
to
agreement
YA}IASHIRO
in
to
does to
agreement KUSAXA
and
the
upon
Board
of
to
and
01 are
Case
Case judgment.
initially
dismiss
for
the
therefore
material
the
continuing the
not understanding
agreement
whether
not the
No.
No.
denies
and
the
respective
record,
and
clearly
sign
were
and 6
moot in
foregoing,
the
CE—10—325,
CE—Dl—324
TAMIGAWA
parties
whether
presented
BEN
fact
order the
the
moot
the complaints,
in
contend
collateral
because
establish
the
and
parties
a
present
agreement
Respondents’
of
counties
to
to
because
timely
all
contend
Respondents
Board
at
Respondents
the
the
further
enter
as
C
there
of
that
this
failed
parties
and
Board
contended
consequences respectively, manner.
the
the
finds
have
the
when
that
into
time.
hereby
are
the
negotiate
scope
parties
to
motions
finds
respective
KUSAKA
no
YAMASHIRO
complaint
a
initially
as
that
remedial
sign
mayors’
binding
Unit The
by
denies
of
to
were
that
the the the the
due UPW
and the
to
10
on
an Margaret Hawaii. Respondents’ mayors No. hearing Nelson Herbert Board’s Joyce Copies agreement. Ivan 10
employees.
CE—1O—325
M.
M.
sent Bet
are
R. Torigoe,
hearings on
Hanson, Najita,
The YOU DATED:
itel,
Takahashi,
these
to:
signatories
Thus,
UPW
at
ARE
motions
However,
Deputy
this Deputy Deputy
IRC
complaints room,
Honolulu, does
0
HEREBY
based
time.
Esq.
not
Corporation
Room
the
Corporation County
to
to
NOTIFIED
upon
dispute
Board Hawaii,
on
434,
dismiss
the
Attorney
March
the
7
HAWAII
SANDRA
takes
830 Unit
that
that Counsel
Counsel
foregoing,
3,
Punchbowl
the
notice
10
January
H. LABOR the
the
1997
EBESU,
collective
complaints
counties
Board
at
0 RELATIONS
that
24,
the
Street,
9:00
Board
will
the
1997
Board
have
a.m.
bargaining
respective
conduct
Member
BOARD Honolulu,
in
no
denies in
Unit Case
the
a