Oral Arugments before the Intermediate Court of Appeals
No. 29382 Wednesday, August 24, 2011, 9:00 a.m.
In the Matter of UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS, AFSCME, LOCAL 646, AFL-CIO, Union, Petitioner-Appellant, and NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Governor, State of Hawai`i; HAWAI`I GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, AFSCME, LOCAL 152, AFL-CIO; and PETER B. CARLISLE, Mayor, City & County of Honolulu; UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI`I PROFESSIONAL ASSEMBLY, and COUNTY OF HAWAI`I (2007-003), Intervenors-Appellees, and HAWAI`I LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Appellee-Appellee.
Attorneys for Petitioner-Appellant United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL-CIO, Union: Herbert R. Takahashi, Danny J. Vasconcellos, and Rebecca L. Covert of Takahashi Vasconcellos & Covert
Attorneys for Intervenor-Appellee Peter B. Carlisle, Mayor, City and County of Honolulu: Carrie Okinaga, Corporation Counsel; John S. Mukai, Deputy Corporation Counsel
Attorneys for Intervenor-Appellee Neil Abercrombie, Governor, State of Hawaiʻi: David M. Louie, Attorney General; James Halvorson and Jeffrey A. Keating, Deputy Attorneys General
Attorneys for Intervenor-Appellee County of Hawai`i: Diane Noda and Joseph K. Kamelamela, Deputies Corporation Counsel
COURT: Nakamura, CJ; Foley and Leonard, JJ.
SPECIAL NOTE: The above argument will take place in the Supreme Court courtroom on the Second Floor of Aliʻiolani Hale, 417 South King Street, Honolulu, Hawai`i.
In this secondary appeal, Petitioner-Appellant United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL-CIO, Union (UPW) seeks relief from the following order and judgment of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court): (1) Order Reversing Hawaii Labor Relations Board Decision No. 470, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Declaratory Order, filed on January 4, 2008, and (2) Final Judgment, filed on September 29, 2008. On appeal, UPW argues that the Circuit Court: (1) exceeded the permissible scope of judicial review by refusing to defer to the Hawaii Labor Relation Board’s
(HLRB’s) discretionary determination and to afford persuasive weight to its construction of the relevant statutes; (2) erred by reversing an agency decision which was not “palpably erroneous” or inconsistent with the underlying purposes of HRS §§ 89-3 and 89-13(a)(1); (3) erred when it determined that the HLRB exceeded its authority by applying its ruling beyond factual circumstances presented in the petition before the HLRB; and (4) erred when it determined that the HLRB lacked exclusive original jurisdiction to determine a controversy over prohibited practices by employers.